K^l"  ^^ 


lfesMW»^^   I 


/       ^ 


^....-^ 


^V    //- 


>  -^w 


.^..'w^iL: 


■%«3: 


^:^^* 


s>4 


^i  i¥  ^^<^"lagfti,j 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


''Ph. 


'*A 


Division  .JZj.S^^  2,  S 
Section... i.^.A.dA't^ 

v,2 


>r*' 


I^Mj 

THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 


THE  TRIAL  OF  JESUS 


FROM    A    LAWYER'S    STANDPOINT 


Li\x  QF  n 


BY 


WALTER    M.   CHANDLER 


OF   THE    NEW    YORK    BAR 


[*     APR   9   1909 


VOLUME   II 
THE   ROMAN    TRIAL 


THE    EMPIRE    PUBLISHING   CO. 

60  Wall  Street,  New  York  City 
1908 


Copyright,    190?,   by 
WALTER    M.    CHANDLER 

jIll  rights   restr-ved 


LIST    OF    ILLUSTRATIONS 


Christ  Before  Pilate  (Munkacsy) 

Tiberius  C^sar  (Antique  Sculpture)     . 

Pontius  Pilate  (Munkacsy)     , 

Christ  Leaving  the  Pr^torium  (Dore) 

The  Crucifixion  (Munkacsy) 

Jupiter  (Antique  Sculpture)     . 

Ave  C^sar!     Io  Saturnalia  (Alma-Tadema) 

The  Dying  Gladiator  (Antique  Sculpture) 

Reading  from  Homer  (Alma-Tadema) 


Frontisftece 


FAcmo 

PAGB 


68 
8i 

141 
175 
195 

240 
260 
270 


CONTENTS    OF    VOLUME   TWO 

Preface  to  Volume  Two 


PART    I 

THE   ROMAN   TRIAL 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.    A  Twofold  Jurisdiction 3 

II.     Number  of  Regular  Trials 9 

III.  Powers  and  Duties  of  Pilate 24 

IV.  Mode  of  Trial  in  Roman  Capital  Cases    ....  ^\' 
V.     Roman  Forms  of  Punishment '^ 

VI.     Roman  Law  Applicable  to  the  Trial  of  Jesus       .       .  68 

VII.     Pontius  Pilate 81 

VIII.     Jesus  Before  Pilate 96 

IX.     Jesus  Before  Herod 119 

X.     Jesus  Again  Before  Pilate 129 

XI.     Legal  Analysis  and  Summary  of  the  Roman  Trial  of 

Jesus 141 

PART    II 

GR^CO-ROMAN   PAGANISM 

I.    The  Gr^co-Roman  Religion 198 

II.     Gr^co-Roman  Social  Life 236 

APPENDICES 

I.     Characters  of  the  Sanhedrists  who  Tried  Jesus     .       .  291 

II.     Acts  of   Pilate 327 

Bibliography 3^3 

Index 3^9 


PREFACE    TO    VOLUME    TWO 


UFFICIENT  was  said  concern- 
ing ihe  entire  work  in  the  pref- 
ace to  volume  one  to  warrant  a 
very  brief  preface  to  volume  two. 
The  reader  will  notice  that  the 
plan  of  treatment  of  the  Roman 
trial  of  Jesus  is  radically  differ- 
ent from  that  employed  in  the 
,  Hebrew  trial.  There  is  no  Rec- 
ord of  Fact  in  the  second  volume,  for  the  reason  that 
the  Record  of  Fact  dealt  with  in  the  first  volume  is 
common  to  the  two  trials.  Again,  there  is  no  Brief 
of  the  Roman  trial  and  no  systematic  and  exhaustive 
treatment  of  Roman  criminal  law  in  the  second  vol- 
ume, corresponding  with  such  a  treatment  of  the  He- 
brew trial,  under  Hebrew  criminal  law,  in  the  first 
volume.  This  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  San- 
hedrin  found  Jesus  guilty,  while  both  Pilate  and  Herod 
found  Him  not  guilty.  A  proper  consideration  then 
of  the  Hebrew  trial  became  a  matter  of  review  on 
appeal,  requiring  a  Brief,  containing  a  complete  state- 
ment of  facts,  an  ample  exposition  of  law,  and  sufficient 
argument  to  show  the  existence  of  error  in  the  judg- 
ment. The  nature  of  the  verdicts  pronounced  by  Pilate 
and  by  Herod  rendered  these  things  unnecessary  in 
dealing  with  the  Roman  trial. 


X  PREFACE   TO    VOLUME    TWO 

In  Part  II  of  this  volume,  Graeco-Roman  Pagan- 
ism at  the  time  of  Christ  has  been  treated.  It  is 
evident  that  this  part  of  the  treatise  has  no  legal  con- 
nection with  the  trial  of  Jesus.  It  w^as  added  simply 
to  give  coloring  and  atmosphere  to  the  painting  of  the 
great  tragedy.  It  will  serve  the  further  purpose,  it  is 
believed,  of  furnishing  a  key  to  the  motives  of  the  lead- 
ing actors  in  the  drama,  by  describing  their  social,  re- 
ligious, and  political  environments.  The  strictly  legal 
features  of  a  great  criminal  trial  are  rarely  ever  alto- 
gether sufficient  for  a  proper  understanding  of  even 
the  judicial  aspects  of  the  case.  The  religious  faith  of 
Pilate,  the  judge,  is  quite  as  important  a  factor  in  de- 
termining the  merits  of  the  Roman  trial,  as  is  the  re- 
ligious belief  of  Jesus,  the  prisoner.  This  contention 
will  be  fully  appreciated  after  a  careful  perusal  of 
Chapter  VI  of  this  volume. 

Short  biographical  sketches  of  about  forty  members 
of  the  Great  Sanhedrin  who  tried  Jesus  have  been  given 
under  Appendix  I  at  the  end  of  this  work.  They  were 
originally  written  by  MM.  Lemann,  two  of  the  great- 
est Hebrew  scholars  of  France,  and  are  doubtless  au- 
thoritative and  correct.  These  sketches  will  familiarize 
the  reader  with  the  names  and  characters  of  a  majority 
of  the  Hebrew  judges  of  Jesus.  And  it  may  be  added 
that  they  are  a  very  valuable  addition  to  the  general 
work,  since  the  character  of  the  tribunal  is  an  impor- 
tant consideration  in  the  trial  of  any  case,  civil  or 
criminal. 

The  apocryphal  Acts  of  Pilate  have  been  given 
under  Appendix  II.     But  the  author  does  not  thereby 


PREFACE    TO    VOLUME    TWO  xi 

vouch  for  their  authenticity.  They  have  been  added 
because  of  their  very  intimate  connection  with  the  trial 
of  Jesus;  and  for  the  further  reason  that,  whether 
authentic  or  not,  quotations  from  them  are  to  be  found 
everywhere  in  literature,  sacred  and  secular,  dealing 
with  this  subject.  The  mystery  of  their  origin,  the 
question  of  their  genuineness,  and  the  final  disposition 
that  will  be  made  of  them,  render  the  Acts  of  Pilate  a 
subject  of  surpassing  interest  to  the  student  of  ancient 
documents. 

Walter  M.  Chandler. 

New  York  City,  July  i,  1908. 


PART    I 
THE    ROMAN   TRIAL 

Christus,  Tibcrio  imperitante,  per  procuratorein 
Pontium  Pilatum  supplicio  afFectus  est. — Tacitus. 


CHAPTER   I 


A  TWOFOLD  JURISDICTION 


P^^^ 

^^^ttHQ{^^^ 

T 

M 

■ 

m 

H 

HE  Hebrew  trial  of  Jesus  hav- 
ing ended,  the  Roman  trial  be- 
gan. The  twofold  character  of 
the  proceedings  against  the 
Christ  invested  them  with  a  sol- 
emn majesty,  an  awful  gran- 
deur. The  two  mightiest  juris- 
dictions of  the  earth  assumed 
cognizance  of  charges  against 
the  Man  of  Galilee,  the  central  figure  of  all  history. 
"  His  tomb,"  says  Lamartine,  "  was  the  grave  of  the 
Old  World  and  the  cradle  of  the  New,"  and  now  upon 
His  life  before  He  descended  into  the  tomb,  Rome,  the 
mother  of  laws,  and  Jerusalem,  the  destroyer  of  proph- 
ets, sat  in  judgment. 

The  Sanhedrin,  or  Grand  Council,  which  conducted 
the  Hebrew  trial  of  Jesus  was  the  high  court  of  justice 
and  the  supreme  tribunal  of  the  Jews.  It  numbered 
seventy-one  members.  Its  powers  were  legislative, 
executive,  and  judicial.  It  exercised  all  the  functions 
of  education,  of  government,  and  of  religion.  It  was 
the  national  parliament  of  the  Hebrew  Theocracy,  the 
human  administrator  of  the  divine!  will.     It  was  the 

3 


4  THE   TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

most  august  tribunal  that  ever  interpreted  or  adminis- 
tered religion  to  man.  Its  judges  applied  the  laws  of 
the  most  peculiar  and  venerable  system  of  jurispru- 
dence known  to  civilized  mankind,  and  condemned 
upon  the  charge  of  blasphemy  against  Jehovah,  the 
most  precious  and  illustrious  of  the  human  race. 
Standing  alone,  the  Hebrew  trial  of  Christ  would  have 
been  the  most  thrilling  and  impressive  judicial  pro- 
ceeding in  all  history.  The  Mosaic  Code,  whose  pro- 
visions form  the  basis  of  this  trial,  is  the  foundation 
of  the  Bible,  the  most  potent  juridical  as  well  as  spir- 
itual agency  in  the  universe.  In  all  the  courts  of 
Christendom  it  binds  the  consciences,  if  it  does  not 
mold  the  convictions,  of  judge  and  jury  in  passing 
judgment  upon  the  rights  of  life,  liberty,  and  property. 
The  Bible  is  everywhere  to  be  found.  It  is  read  in 
the  jungles  of  Africa,  while  crossing  burning  deserts, 
and  amidst  Arctic  snows.  No  ship  ever  puts  to  sea 
without  this  sacred  treasure.  It  is  found  in  the  cave 
of  the  hermit,  in  the  hut  of  the  peasant,  in  the  palace  of 
the  king,  and  in  the  Vatican  of  the  pope.  It  adorns 
the  altar  where  bride  and  bridegroom  meet  to  pledge 
eternal  love.  It  sheds  its  hallowing  influence  upon  the 
baptismal  font  where  infancy  is  christened  into  reli- 
gious life.  Its  divine  precepts  furnish  elements  of 
morals  and  manliness  in  formative  life  to  jubilant 
youth;  cast  a  radiant  charm  about  the  strength  of  lusty 
manhood;  and  when  life's  pilgrimage  is  ended,  oflfer 
to  the  dying  patriarch,  who  clasps  it  to  his  bosom,  a 
sublime  solace  as  he  crosses  the  great  divide  and  passes 
into  the  twilight's  purple  gloom.    This  noble  book  has 


A   TWOFOLD    JURISDICTION  5 

furnished  not  only  the  most  enduring  laws  and  the  sub- 
limest  religious  truths,  but  inspiration  as  well  to  the 
grandest  intellectual  triumphs.  It  is  literally  woven 
into  the  literature  of  the  world,  and  few  books  of  mod- 
ern times  are  worth  reading  that  do  not  reflect  the  sen- 
timents of  its  sacred  pages.  And  it  was  the  Mosaic 
Code,  the  basis  of  this  book,  that  furnished  the  legal 
guide  to  the  Sanhedrin  in  the  trial  of  the  Christ. 
Truly  it  may  be  said  that  no  other  trial  mentioned  in 
history  would  have  been  comparable  to  this,  if  the  pro- 
ceedings had  ended  here.  But  to  the  Hebrew  was 
added  Roman  cognizance,  and  the  result  was  a  judicial 
transaction  at  once  unique  and  sublime.  If  the  sacred 
spirit  of  the  Hebrew  law  has  illuminated  the  con- 
science of  the  world  in  every  age,  it  must  not  be  forgot- 
ten that  "  the  written  reason  of  the  Roman  law  has 
been  silently  and  studiously  transfused  "  into  all  our 
modern  legal  and  political  life.  The  Roman  judicial 
system  is  incomparable  in  the  history  of  jurisprudence. 
Judea  gave  religion,  Greece  gave  letters,  and  Rome 
gave  laws  to  mankind.  Thus  runs  the  judgment  of  the 
world.  A  fine  sense  of  justice  was  native  to  the  Roman 
mind.  A  spirit  of  domination  was  the  mental  accom- 
paniment of  this  trait.  The  mighty  abstraction  called 
Rome  may  be  easily  resolved  into  two  cardinal  con- 
crete elements:  the  Legion  and  the  Law.  The  legion 
was  the  unit  of  the  military  system  through  which 
Rome  conquered  the  world.  The  law  was  the  cement- 
ing bond  betsveen  the  conquered  states  and  the  sover- 
eign city  on  the  hills.  The  legion  was  the  guardian 
and  protector  of  the  physical  boundaries  of  the  Em- 


6  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

pire,  and  Roman  citizens  felt  contented  and  secure,  as 
long  as  the  legionaries  were  loyal  to  the  standards  and 
the  eagles.  The  presence  of  barbarians  at  the  gate 
created  not  so  much  consternation  and  despair  among 
the  citizens  of  Rome,  as  did  the  news  of  the  mutiny  of 
the  soldiers  of  Germanicus  on  the  Rhine.  What  the 
legion  was  to  the  body,  the  law  was  to  the  soul  of  Rome 
— the  highest  expression  of  its  sanctity  and  majesty. 
And  when  her  physical  body  that  once  extended  from 
Scotland  to  Judea,  and  from  Dacia  to  Abyssinia  was 
dead,  in  the  year  476  A.D.,  her  soul  rose  triumphant  in 
her  laws  and  established  a  second  Roman  Empire  over 
the  minds  and  consciences  of  men.  The  Corpus  Juris 
Civilis  of  Justinian  is  a  text-book  in  the  greatest  uni- 
versities of  the  world,  and  Roman  law  is  to-day  the 
basis  of  the  jurisprudence  of  nearly  every  state  of  con- 
tinental Europe.  The  Germans  never  submitted  to 
Caesar  and  his  legions.  They  were  the  first  to  resist 
successfully,  then  to  attack  vigorously,  and  to  over- 
throw finally  the  Roman  Empire.  And  yet,  until  a 
few  years  ago,  Germans  obeyed  implicitly  the  edicts 
and  decrees  of  Roman  praetors  and  tribunes.  Is  it  any 
wonder,  then,  that  the  lawyers  of  all  modern  centuries 
have  looked  back  with  filial  love  and  veneration  to  the 
mighty  jurisconsults  of  the  imperial  republic?  Is  it  any 
w^onder  that  the  tragedy  of  the  Praetorium  and  Gol- 
gotha, aside  from  its  sacred  aspects,  is  the  most  notable 
event  in  history?  Jesus  was  arraigned  in  one  day,  in 
one  city,  before  the  sovereign  courts  of  the  universe; 
before  the  Sanhedrin,  the  supreme  tribunal  of  a  di- 
vinely commissioned  race;  before  the  court  of  the  Ro- 


A   TWOFOLD    JURISDICTION  7 

man  Empire  that  determined  the  legal  and  political 
rights  of  men  throughout  the  known  world.  The 
Nazarene  stood  charged  with  blasphemy  and  with 
treason  against  the  enthroned  monarchs  represented  by 
these  courts;  blasphemy  against  Jehovah  who,  from 
the  lightning-lit  summit  of  Sinai,  proclaimed  His  laws 
to  mankind;  treason  against  Caesar,  enthroned  and 
uttering  his  will  to  the  world  amidst  the  pomp  and 
splendor  of  Rome.  History  records  no  other  instance 
of  a  trial  conducted  before  the  courts  of  both  Heaven 
and  earth;  the  court  of  God  and  the  court  of  man; 
under  the  law  of  Israel  and  the  law  of  Rome;  before 
Caiaphas  and  Pilate,  as  the  representatives  of  these 
courts  and  administrators  of  these  laws. 

Approaching  more  closely  the  consideration  of  the 
nature  and  character  of  the  Roman  trial,  we  are  con- 
fronted at  once  by  several  pertinent  and  interesting 
questions. 

In  the  first  place,  were  there  two  distinct  trials  of 
Jesus?  If  so,  why  were  there  two  trials  instead  of  one? 
Were  the  two  trials  separate  and  independent?  If  not, 
was  the  second  trial  a  mere  review  of  the  first,  or  was 
the  first  a  mere  preliminary  to  the  second? 

Again,  what  charges  were  brought  against  Jesus  at 
the  hearing  before  Pilate?  Were  these  charges  the 
same  as  those  preferred  against  Him  at  the  trial  before 
the  Sanhedrin?  Upon  what  charge  was  He  finally 
condemned  and  crucified? 

Again,  what  Roman  law  was  applicable  to  the 
charges  made  against  Jesus  to  Pilate?  Did  Pilate 
apply  these  laws  either  in  letter  or  in  spirit? 


8  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

Was  there  an  attempt  by  Pilate  to  attain  substantial 
justice,  either  with  or  without  the  due  observance  of 
forms  of  law? 

Did  Pilate  apply  Hebrew  or  Roman  law  to  the 
charges  presented  to  him  against  the  Christ? 

What  forms  of  criminal  procedure,  if  any,  were  cm- 
ployed  by  Pilate  in  conducting  the  Roman  trial  of 
Jesus?  If  not  legally,  was  Pilate  politically  justified 
in  delivering  Jesus  to  be  crucified? 

A  satisfactory  answer  to  several  of  these  questions, 
in  the  introductory  chapters  of  this  volume,  is  deemed 
absolutely  essential  to  a  thorough  understanding  of  the 
discussion  of  the  trial  proper  which  will  follow.  The 
plan  proposed  is  to  describe  first  the  powers  and  duties 
of  Pilate  as  presiding  judge  at  the  trial  of  Christ. 
And  for  this  purpose,  general  principles  of  Roman 
provincial  administration  will  be  outlined  and  dis- 
cussed ;  the  legal  and  political  status  of  the  subject  Jew 
in  his  relationship  to  the  conquering  Roman  will  be 
considered;  and  the  exact  requirements  of  criminal 
procedure  in  Roman  capital  trials,  at  the  time  of 
Christ,  will,  if  possible,  be  determined.  It  is  believed 
that  in  the  present  case  it  will  be  more  logical  and 
effective  to  state  first  what  should  have  been  done  by 
Pilate  in  the  trial  of  Jesus,  and  then  follow  with  an 
account  of  what  was  actually  done,  than  to  reverse  this 
order  of  procedure. 


CHAPTER    II 


NUMBER  OF  REGULAR  TRIALS 


ERE  there  two  regular  trials  of 
Jesus?  In  the  first  volume  of 
this  work  this  question  was  re- 
viewed at  length  in  the  intro- 
duction to  the  Brief.  The  au- 
thorities were  there  cited  and 
discussed.  It  was  there  seen 
that  one  class  of  writers  deny  the 
existence  of  the  Great  Sanhe- 
drin  at  the  time  of  Christ.  These  same  writers  declare 
that  there  could  have  been  no  Hebrew  trial  of  Jesus, 
since  there  was  no  competent  Hebrew  court  in  exist- 
ence to  try  Him.  This  class  of  critics  assert  that  the 
so-called  Sanhedrin  that  met  in  the  palace  of  Caiaphas 
was  an  ecclesiastical  body,  acting  without  judicial 
authority;  and  that  their  proceedings  were  merely 
preparatory  to  charges  to  be  presented  to  Pilate,  who 
was  alone  competent  to  try  capital  cases.  Those  who 
make  this  contention  seek  to  uphold  it  by  saying  that 
the  errors  were  so  numerous  and  the  proceedings  so 
flagrant,  according  to  the  Gospel  account,  that  there 
could  have  been  no  trial  at  all  before  the  Sanhedrin; 
that  the  party  of  priests  who  arrested  and  examined 

9 


lo  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Jesus  did  not  constitute  a  court,  but  rather  a  vigilance 
committee. 

On  the  other  hand,  other  writers  contend  that  the 
only  regular  trial  was  that  before  the  Sanhedrin;  and 
that  the  appearance  before  Pilate  was  merely  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  his  confirmation  of  a  regular  judi- 
cial sentence  which  had  already  been  pronounced. 
Renan,  the  ablest  exponent  of  this  class,  says:  "The 
course  which  the  priests  had  resolved  to  pursue  in  re- 
gard to  Jesus  was  quite  in  conformity  with  the  estab- 
lished law.  The  plan  of  the  enemies  of  Jesus  was  to 
convict  Him,  by  the  testimony  of  witnesses  and  by  His 
own  avowals,  of  blasphemy  and  of  outrage  against  the 
Mosaic  religion,  to  condemn  Him  to  death  according 
to  law,  and  then  to  get  the  condemnation  sanctioned 
by  Pilate." 

Still  another  class  of  writers  contend  that  there  were 
two  distinct  trials.  Innes  thus  tersely  and  forcibly 
states  the  proposition:  "Whether  it  was  legitimate  or 
not  for  the  Jews  to  condemn  for  a  capital  crime,  on 
this  occasion  they  did  so.  Whether  it  was  legitimate 
or  not  for  Pilate  to  try  over  again  an  accused  whom 
they  had  condemned,  on  this  occasion  he  did  so. 
There  were  certainly  two  trials.  And  the  dialogue 
already  narrated  expresses  with  a  most  admirable 
terseness  the  struggle  which  we  should  have  expected 
between  the  elTort  of  the  Jews  to  get  a  mere  counter- 
sign of  their  sentence,  and  the  determination  of  Pilate 
to  assume  the  full  judicial  responsibility,  whether  of 
first  instance  or  of  revision."  This  contention,  it  is  be- 
lieved, is  right,  and  has  been  acted  upon  in  dividing 


NUMBER   OF    REGULAR   TRIALS  ii 

the  general  treatise  into  two  volumes,  and  in  devoting 
each  to  a  separate  trial  of  the  case. 

Why  were  there  two  trials  of  Jesus?  When  the  San- 
hedrists  had  condemned  Christ  to  death  upon  the 
charge  of  blasphemy,  why  did  they  not  lead  Him  away 
to  execution,  and  stone  Him  to  death,  as  their  law  re- 
quired? Why  did  they  seek  the  aid  of  Pilate  and 
invoke  the  sanction  of  Roman  authority?  The  answer 
to  these  questions  is  to  be  found  in  the  historic  relation- 
ship that  existed,  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion,  be- 
tween the  sovereign  Roman  Empire  and  the  dependent 
province  of  Judea.  The  student  of  history  will  re- 
member that  the  legions  of  Pompey  overran  Palestine 
in  the  year  63  B.C.,  and  that  the  land  of  the  Jews  then 
became  a  subject  state.  After  the  deposition  of  Arche- 
laus,  A.D.  6,  Judea  became  a  Roman  province,  and  was 
governed  by  procurators  who  were  sent  out  from 
Rome.  The  historian  Rawlinson  has  described  the 
political  situation  of  Judea,  at  the  time  of  Christ,  as 
''  complicated  and  anomalous,  undergoing  frequent 
changes,  but  retaining  through  them  all  certain  pecu- 
liarities which  made  that  country  unique  among  the 
dependencies  of  Rome.  Having  passed  under  Roman 
rule  with  the  consent  and  by  the  assistance  of  a  large 
party  of  its  inhabitants,  it  was  allowed  to  maintain  for 
a  while  a  sort  of  semi-independence.  A  mixture  of 
Roman  with  native  power  resulted  from  this  cause  and 
a  complication  in  a  political  status  difficult  to  be  thor- 
oughly understood  by  one  not  native  and  contem- 
porary." 

The   difficulty   in   determining   the   exact   political 


12  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

status  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ  has  given  birth 
to  the  radically  dififerent  views  concerning  the  number 
and  nature  of  the  trials  of  Jesus.  The  most  learned 
critics  are  in  direct  antagonism  on  the  point.  More 
than  forty  years  ago  Salvador  and  Dupin  debated  the 
question  in  France.  The  former  contended  that  the 
Sanhedrin  retained  complete  authority  after  the  Ro- 
man conquest  to  try  even  capital  crimes,  and  that  sen- 
tence of  death  pronounced  by  the  supreme  tribunal  of 
the  Jews  required  only  the  countersign  or  approval  of 
the  Roman  procurator.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was 
argued  by  Dupin  that  the  Sanhedrin  had  no  right 
whatever  to  try  cases  of  a  capital  nature;  that  their 
whole  procedure  was  a  usurpation;  and  that  the  only 
competent  and  legitimate  trial  of  Christ  was  the  one 
conducted  by  Pilate.  How  difficult  the  problem  is  of 
solution  will  be  apparent  when  we  reflect  that  both 
these  disputants  were  able,  learned,  conscientious  men 
who,  with  the  facts  of  history  in  front  of  them,  arrived 
at  entirely  dififerent  conclusions.  Amidst  the  general 
confusion  and  uncertainty,  the  reader  must  rely  upon 
himself,  and  appeal  to  the  facts  and  philosophy  of  his- 
tory for  light  and  guidance. 

In  seeking  to  ascertain  the  political  relationship  be- 
tween Rome  and  Judea  at  the  time  of  Christ,  two  im- 
portant considerations  should  be  kept  in  mind:  (i) 
That  there  was  no  treaty  or  concordat,  defining  mutual 
rights  and  obligations,  existing  between  the  two  pow- 
ers; Romans  were  the  conquerors  and  Jews  were  the 
conquered;  the  subject  Jews  enjoyed  just  so  much 
religious    and    political    freedom    as    the    conquering 


NUMBER    OF    REGULAR    TRIALS  13 

Romans  saw  fit  to  grant  them;  (2)  that  it  was  the 
policy  of  the  Roman  government  to  grant  to  subject 
states  the  greatest  amount  of  freedom  in  local  self- 
government  that  was  consistent  with  the  interests  and 
sovereignty  of  the  Roman  people.  These  two  consid- 
erations are  fundamental  and  indispensable  in  forming 
a  correct  notion  of  the  general  relations  between  the 
two  powers. 

The  peculiar  character  of  Judea  as  a  fragment  of  the 
mighty  Roman  Empire  should  also  be  kept  clearly  in 
mind.  Roman  conquest,  from  first  to  last,  resulted  in 
three  distinct  types  of  political  communities  more  or 
less  strongly  bound  by  ties  of  interest  to  Rome.  These 
classes  were:  (i)  Free  states;  (2)  allied  states;  and 
(3)  subject  states.  The  communities  of  Italy  were  in 
the  main,  free  and  allied,  and  were  members  of  a  great 
military  confederacy.  The  provinces  beyond  Italy 
were,  in  the  main,  subject  states  and  dependent  upon 
the  good  will  and  mercy  of  Rome.  The  free  states  re- 
ceived from  Rome  a  charter  of  privileges  (lex  data) 
which,  however,  the  Roman  senate  might  at  any  time 
revoke.  The  allied  cities  were  bound  by  a  sworn 
treaty  (fceJus),  a  breach  of  which  was  a  cause  of  war. 
In  either  case,  whether  of  charter  or  treaty,  the  grant 
of  privileges  raised  the  state  or  people  on  whom  it  was 
conferred  to  the  level  of  the  Italian  communes  and 
secured  to  its  inhabitants  absolute  control  of  their  own 
finances,  free  and  full  possession  of  their  land,  which 
exempted  them  from  the  payment  of  tribute,  and, 
above  all,  allowed  them  entire  freedom  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  their  local  laws.     The  subject  states  were 


14  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

ruled  by  Roman  governors  who  administered  the  so- 
called  law  of  the  province  (lex  provincite).  This  law 
was  peculiar  to  each  province  and  was  framed  to  meet 
all  the  exigencies  of  provincial  life.  It  was  sometimes 
the  work  of  a  conquering  general,  assisted  by  a  com- 
mission of  ten  men  appointed  by  the  senate.  At  other 
times,  its  character  was  determined  by  the  decrees  of 
the  emperor  and  the  senate,  as  well  as  by  the  edicts 
of  the  praetor  and  procurator.  In  any  case,  the  law  of 
the  province  (lex  provincicB)  was  the  sum  total  of  the 
local  provincial  law  which  Rome  saw  fit  to  allow  the 
people  of  the  conquered  state  to  retain,  with  Roman 
decrees  and  regulations  superadded.  These  added  de- 
crees and  regulations  were  always  determined  by  local 
provincial  conditions.  The  Romans  were  no  sticklers 
for  consistency  and  uniformity  in  provincial  adminis- 
tration. Adaptability  and  expediency  were  the  main 
traits  of  the  lawgiving  and  government-imposing 
genius  of  Rome.  The  payment  of  taxes  and  the  fur- 
nishing of  auxiliary  troops  were  the  chief  exactions  im- 
posed upon  conquered  states.  An  enlightened  public 
policy  prompted  the  Romans  to  grant  to  subject  com- 
munities the  greatest  amount  of  freedom  consistent 
with  Roman  sovereignty.  Two  main  reasons  formed 
the  basis  of  this  policy.  One  was  the  economy  of  time 
and  labor,  for  the  Roman  official  staff  was  not  large 
enough  to  successfully  perform  those  official  duties 
which  were  usually  incumbent  upon  the  local  courts. 
Racial  and  religious  differences  alone  would  have  im- 
peded and  prevented  a  successful  administration  of 
local  government  by  Roman  diplomats  and  officers. 


NUMBER   OF    REGULAR   TRIALS  15 

Another  reason  for  Roman  noninterference  in  local 
provincial  affairs  was  that  loyalty  was  created  and 
peace  promoted  among  the  provincials  by  the  enjoy- 
ment of  their  own  laws  and  religions.  To  such  an 
extent  was  this  policy  carried  by  the  Romans  that  it  is 
asserted  by  the  best  historians  that  there  was  little  real 
difference  in  practice  between  the  rights  exercised  by 
free  and  those  enjoyed  by  subject  states.  On  this  point, 
Mommsen  says :  "  In  regard  to  the  extent  of  applica- 
tion, the  jurisdiction  of  the  native  courts  and  judicato- 
ries among  subject  communities  can  scarcely  have  been 
much  more  restricted  than  among  the  federated  com- 
munities; while  in  administration  and  in  civil  jurisdic- 
tion we  find  the  same  principles  operative  as  in  legal 
procedure  and  criminal  laws."  ^  The  difference  be- 
tween the  rights  enjoyed  by  subject  and  those  exercised 
by  free  states  was  that  the  former  were  subject  to  the 
whims  and  caprices  of  Rome,  while  the  latter  were 
protected  by  a  written  charter.  A  second  difference 
was  that  Roman  citizens  residing  within  the  bounda- 
ries of  subject  states  had  their  own  law  and  their  own 
judicatories.  The  general  result  was  that  the  citizens 
of  subject  states  were  left  free  to  govern  themselves 
subject  to  the  two  great  obligations  of  taxation  and 
military  service.  The  Roman  authorities,  however, 
could  and  did  interfere  in  legislation  and  in  adminis- 
tration whenever  Roman  interests  required. 

Now,  in  the  light  of  the  facts  and  principles  just 
stated,  what  was  the  exact  political  status  of  the  Jews 
at  the  time  of  Christ?    Judea  was  a  subject  state.    Did 

1  Mommsen,  "  Romisches  Staatsrecht,"  III.  I.  p.  748. 


1 6  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

the  general  laws  of  Roman  provincial  administration 
apply  to  this  province?  Or  w^ere  peculiar  rights  and 
privileges  granted  to  the  strange  people  who  inhabited 
it?  A  great  German  writer  answers  in  the  affirmative. 
Geib  says:  "  Only  one  province  .  .  .  namely  Judea,  at 
least  in  the  earlier  days  of  the  empire,  formed  an  ex- 
ception to  all  the  arrangements  hitherto  described. 
Whereas  in  the  other  provinces  the  whole  criminal 
jurisdiction  was  in  the  hands  of  the  governor,  and  only 
in  the  most  important  cases  had  the  supreme  imperial 
courts  to  decide — just  as  in  the  least  important  matters 
the  municipal  courts  did — the  principle  that  applied 
in  Judea  was  that  at  least  in  regard  to  questions  of  re- 
ligious offenses  the  high  priest  with  the  Sanhedrin 
could  pronounce  even  death  sentences,  for  the  carrying 
out  of  which,  however,  the  confirmation  of  the  proc- 
urator was  required." 

That  Roman  conquest  did  not  blot  out  Jewish  local 
self-government;  and  that  the  Great  Sanhedrin  still 
retained  judicial  and  administrative  power,  subject  to 
Roman  authority  in  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  local 
affairs  of  the  Jews,  is  thus  clearly  and  pointedly  stated 
by  Schiirer:  "  As  regards  the  area  over  which  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  supreme  Sanhedrin  extended,  it  has 
been  already  remarked  above  that  its  civil  authority 
was  restricted,  in  the  time  of  Christ,  to  the  eleven 
toparchies  of  Judea  proper.  And  accordingly,  for  this 
reason,  it  had  no  judicial  authority  over  Jesus  Christ 
so  long  as  He  remained  in  Galilee.  It  was  only  as 
soon  as  He  entered  Judea  that  He  came  directly  under 
its  jurisdiction.    In  a  certain  sense,  no  doubt,  the  San- 


NUMBER   OF    REGULAR   TRIALS  17 

hedrin  exercised  such  jurisdiction  over  every  Jewish 
community  in  the  world,  and  in  that  sense  over  Galilee 
as  wxll.  Its  orders  were  regarded  as  binding  through- 
out the  entire  domain  of  orthodox  Judaism.  It  had 
power,  for  example,  to  issue  warrants  to  the  congrega- 
tions (synagogues)  in  Damascus  for  the  apprehension 
of  the  Christians  in  that  quarter  (Acts  ix.  2;  xxii.  5; 
xxvi.  12).  At  the  same  time,  however,  the  extent  to 
which  the  Jewish  communities  were  willing  to  yield 
obedience  to  the  orders  of  the  Sanhedrin  always  de- 
pended on  how  far  they  were  favorably  disposed 
toward  it.  It  was  only  within  the  limits  of  Judea 
proper  that  it  exercised  any  direct  authority.  There 
could  not  possibly  be  a  more  erroneous  way  of  defin- 
ing the  extent  of  its  jurisdiction  as  regards  the  kind  of 
causes  with  which  it  was  competent  to  deal  than  to  say 
that  it  was  the  spiritual  or  theological  tribunal  in  con- 
tradistinction to  the  civil  judicatories  of  the  Romans. 
On  the  contrary,  it  would  be  more  correct  to  say  that 
it  formed,  in  contrast  to  the  foreign  authority  of  Rome, 
that  supreme  native  court  which  here,  as  almost 
everyw^here  else,  the  Romans  had  allowed  to  continue 
as  before,  only  imposing  certain  restrictions  with  re- 
gard to  competency.  To  this  tribunal  then  belonged 
all  those  judicial  matters  and  all  those  measures  of  an 
administrative  character  which  either  could  not  be 
competently  dealt  with  by  the  inferior  or  local  courts 
or  which  the  Roman  procurator  had  not  specially 
reserved  for  himself."  ^ 
The  closing  words  of  the  last  quotation  suggest  an 

^  "The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ,"  2d  Div.,  I.  p.  185. 


i8  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

important  fact  which  furnishes  the  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion asked  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  Why  were 
there  two  trials  of  Jesus?  Schiirer  declares  that  the 
Sanhedrin  retained  judicial  and  administrative  power 
in  all  local  matters  which  the  *'  procurator  had  not 
specially  reserved  for  himself."  Now,  it  should  be 
borne  in  mind  that  there  is  not  now  in  existence  and 
that  there  probably  never  existed  any  law,  treaty  or 
decree  declaring  what  judicial  acts  the  Sanhedrin  was 
competent  to  perform  and  what  acts  were  reserved  to 
the  authority  of  the  Roman  governor.  It  is  probable 
that  in  all  ordinary  crimes  the  Jews  were  allowed  a 
free  hand  and  final  decision  by  the  Romans.  No  in- 
terference took  place  unless  Roman  interests  were  in- 
volved or  Roman  sovereignty  threatened.  But  one 
fact  is  well  established  by  the  great  weight  of  author- 
ity: that  the  question  of  sovereignty  was  raised  when- 
ever the  question  of  life  and  death  arose;  and  that 
Rome  reserved  to  herself,  in  such  a  case,  the  preroga- 
tive of  final  judicial  determination.  Even  this  conten- 
tion, however,  has  been  opposed  by  both  ancient  and 
modern  writers  of  repute;  and,  for  this  reason,  it  has 
been  thought  necessary  to  cite  authorities  and  offer  ar- 
guments in  favor  of  the  proposition  that  the  right  of 
life  or  death,  jus  vit^e  aut  necis,  had  passed  from  Jew- 
ish into  Roman  hands  at  the  time  of  Christ.  Both 
sacred  and  profane  history  support  the  affirmative  of 
this  proposition.  Regarding  this  matter,  Schiirer 
says:  "  There  is  a  special  interest  attaching  to  the  ques- 
tion as  to  how  far  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Sanhedrin 
was  limited  by  the  authority  of  the  Roman  procurator. 


NUMBER    OF    REGULAR    TRIALS  19 

We  accordingly  proceed  to  observe  that,  inasmuch  as 
the  Roman  system  of  provincial  government  was  not 
strictly  carried  out  in  the  case  of  Judea,  as  the  simple 
fact  of  its  being  administered  by  means  of  a  procurator 
plainly  shows,  the  Sanhedrin  was  still  left  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  a  comparatively  high  degree  of  independence. 
Not  only  did  it  exercise  civil  jurisdiction,  and  that 
according  to  Jewish  law  (which  was  only  a  matter  of 
course,  as  otherwise  a  Jewish  court  of  justice  would 
have  been  simply  inconceivable),  but  it  also  enjoyed  a 
considerable  amount  of  criminal  jurisdiction  as  well. 
It  had  an  independent  authority  in  regard  to  political 
affairs,  and  consequently  possessed  the  right  of  order- 
ing arrests  to  be  made  by  its  own  officers  (Matt.  xxvi. 
47;  Mark  xiv.  43;  Acts  iv.  3;  v.  17,  18).  It  had  also 
the  power  of  finally  disposing,  on  its  own  authority, 
of  such  cases  as  did  not  involve  sentence  of  death  (Acts 
iv.  5-23 ;  V.  21-40).  It  was  only  in  cases  in  which  such 
sentence  of  death  was  pronounced  that  the  judgment 
required  to  be  ratified  by  the  authority  of  the  proc- 
urator." ^ 

The  Jews  contend,  and,  indeed,  the  Talmud  states 
that  "  forty  years  before  the  destruction  of  the  temple 
the  judgment  of  capital  cases  was  taken  away  from 
Israel." 

Again,  we  learn  from  Josephus  that  the  Jews  had 
lost  the  power  to  inflict  capital  punishment  from  the 
day  of  the  deposition  of  Archelaus,  A.D.  6,  when  Judea 
became  a  Roman  province  and  was  placed  under  the 
control  of  Roman  procurators.    The  great  Jewish  his- 

^  "The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ,"  2d  Div.,  I.  p.  187. 


20  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

torian  says:  "  And  now  Archelaus's  part  of  Judea  was 
reduced  into  a  province,  and  Coponius,  one  of  the 
equestrian  order  among  the  Romans,  was  sent  as  proc- 
urator, having  the  power  of  life  and  death  put  into 
his  hands  by  Caesar."  ^ 

Again,  we  are  informed  that  Annas  was  deposed 
from  the  high  priesthood  by  the  procurator  Valerius 
Gratus,  A.D.  14,  for  imposing  and  executing  capital 
sentences.  One  of  his  sons,  we  learn  from  Josephus, 
was  also  deposed  by  King  Agrippa  for  condemning 
James,  the  brother  of  Jesus,  and  several  others,  to  death 
by  stoning.  At  the  same  time,  Agrippa  reminded  the 
high  priest  that  the  Sanhedrin  could  not  lawfully  as- 
semble without  the  consent  of  the  procurator.^ 

That  the  Jews  had  lost  and  that  the  Roman  procura- 
tors possessed  the  power  over  life  and  death  is  also 
clearly  indicated  by  the  New  Testament  account  of  the 
trial  of  Jesus.  One  passage  explicitly  states  that  Pilate 
claimed  the  right  to  impose  and  carry  out  capital  sen- 
tences. Addressing  Jesus,  Pilate  said:  "  Knowest  thou 
not  that  I  have  power  to  crucify  thee  and  have  power 
to  release  thee?  "  ^ 

In  another  passage,  the  Jews  admitted  that  the 
power  of  life  and  death  had  passed  away  from  them. 
Answering  a  question  of  Pilate,  at  the  time  of  the  trial, 
they  answered :  "  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man 
to  death."  * 

If  we  keep  in  mind  the  fact  stated  by  Geib  that  "  the 
principle  that  applied  in  Judea  was  that  at  least  in 

^  Josephus,  "Wars  of  the  Jews,"  II,  8,  I,  ^  John  xix.  lo. 

2  Josephus,  "Ant.,"  XX.  9,  l.  ^  John  xviii.  31. 


NUMBER   OF    REGULAR    TRIALS  21 

regard  to  questions  of  religious  offense  the  high  priest 
with  the  Sanhedrin  could  pronounce  even  death  sen- 
tences, for  the  carrying  out  of  which,  however,  the 
confirmation  of  the  procurator  was  required,"  we  are 
then  in  a  position  to  answer  finally  and  definitely  the 
question,  Why  were  there  two  trials  of  Jesus? 

In  the  light  of  all  the  authorities  cited  and  discussed 
in  this  chapter,  we  feel  justified  in  asserting  that  the 
Sanhedrin  was  competent  to  take  the  initiative  in  the 
arrest  and  trial  of  Jesus  on  the  charge  of  blasphemy, 
this  being  a  religious  offense  of  the  most  awful  grav- 
ity; that  this  court  was  competent  not  only  to  try  but 
to  pass  sentence  of  death  upon  the  Christ;  but  that  its 
proceedings  had  to  be  retried  or  at  least  reviewed 
before  the  sentence  could  be  executed.  Thus  two  trials 
were  necessary.  The  Hebrew  trial  was  necessary,  be- 
cause a  religious  offense  was  involved  with  which 
Rome  refused  to  meddle,  and  of  which  she  refused  to 
take  cognizance  in  the  first  instance.  The  Roman  trial 
was  necessary,  because,  instead  of  an  acquittal  which 
would  have  rendered  Roman  interference  unnecessary, 
a  conviction  involving  the  death  sentence  had  to  be 
reviewed  in  the  name  of  Roman  sovereignty. 

Having  decided  that  there  were  two  trials,  we  are 
now  ready  to  consider  the  questions:  Were  the  two 
trials  separate  and  independent?  If  not,  was  the  sec- 
ond trial  a  mere  review  of  the  first,  or  was  the  first  a 
mere  preliminary  to  the  second?  No  more  difficult 
questions  are  suggested  by  the  trial  of  Jesus.  It  is,  in 
fact,  impossible  to  answer  them  with  certainty  and 
satisfaction. 


22  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

A  possible  solution  is  to  be  found  in  the  nature  of 
the  charge  preferred  against  Jesus.  It  is  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  in  the  conflict  of  jurisdiction  between 
Jewish  and  Roman  authority  the  character  of  the  crime 
would  be  a  determining  factor.  In  the  case  of  ordinary 
offenses  it  is  probable  that  neither  Jews  nor  Romans 
were  particular  about  the  question  of  jurisdiction.  It 
is  more  than  probable  that  the  Roman  governor  would 
assert  his  right  to  try  the  case  de  novo,  where  the  of- 
fense charged  either  directly  or  remotely  involved  the 
safety  and  sovereignty  of  the  Roman  state.  It  is  en- 
tirely reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  Jews  would  insist 
on  a  final  determination  by  themselves  of  the  merits  of 
all  offenses  of  a  religious  nature;  and  that  they  would 
insist  that  the  Roman  governor  should  limit  his  action 
to  a  mere  countersign  of  their  decree.  It  is  believed 
that  ordinarily  these  principles  would  apply.  But  the 
trial  of  Jesus  presents  a  peculiar  feature  which  makes 
the  case  entirely  exceptional.  And  this  peculiarity,  it 
is  felt,  contains  a  correct  answer  to  the  questions  asked 
above.  Jesus  was  tried  before  the  Sanhedrin  on  the 
charge  of  blasphemy.  This  was  a  religious  offense  of 
the  most  serious  nature.  But  when  the  Christ  was  led 
before  Pilate,  this  charge  was  abandoned  and  that  of 
high  treason  against  Rome  was  substituted.  Now,  it 
is  certain  that  a  Roman  governor  would  not  have  al- 
lowed a  Jewish  tribunal  to  try  an  offense  involving 
high  treason  against  Caesar.  This  was  a  matter  exclu- 
sively under  his  control.  It  is  thus  certain  that  Pilate 
did  not  merely  review  a  sentence  which  had  been 
passed  by  the  Sanhedrin  after  a  regular  trial,  but  that 


NUMBER    OF    REGULAR    TRIALS  23 

he  tried  ab  initio  d.  charge  that  had  not  been  presented 
before  the  Jewish  tribunal  at  the  night  session  in  the 
palace  of  Caiaphas. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  there  were  two  trials  of 
Jesus;  that  these  trials  were  separate  and  independent 
as  far  as  the  charges,  judges,  and  jurisdictions  were 
concerned;  and  that  the  only  common  elements  were 
the  persons  of  the  accusers  and  the  accused. 


CHAPTER    III 


POWERS  AND  DUTIES  OF  PILATE 


HAT  were  the  powers  and  du- 
ties of  Pilate  as  procurator  of 
Judea?  What  forms  of  criminal 
procedure,  if  any,  were  em- 
ployed by  him  in  conducting  the 
Roman  trial  of  Jesus?  This 
chapter  will  be  devoted  to  an- 
swering these  questions. 
The  New  Testament  Gospels 
denominate  Pilate  the  "  governor  "  of  Judea.  A  more 
exact  designation  is  contained  in  the  Latin  phrase, 
procurator  Ccesaris;  the  procurator  of  Caesar.  By  this 
is  meant  that  Pilate  was  the  deputy,  attorney,  or  per- 
sonal representative  of  Tiberius  Caesar  in  the  province 
of  Judea.  The  powers  and  duties  of  his  office  were  by 
no  means  limited  to  the  financial  functions  of  a  Roman 
quaestor,  a  procurator  fiscalis.  "  He  was  a  procurator 
cum  potestate;  a  governor  with  civil,  criminal,  and 
military  jurisdiction;  subordinated  no  doubt  in  rank  to 
the  adjacent  governor  of  Syria,  but  directly  responsible 
to  his  great  master  at  Rome." 

A  clear  conception  of  the  official  character  of  Pilate 
is  impossible  unless  we  first  thoroughly  understand  the 
official  character  of  the  man  whose  political  substitute 

a4 


POWERS   AND    DUTIES    OF    PILATE       25 

he  was.  A  thorough  understanding  of  the  official 
character  of  Tiberius  Caesar  is  impossible  unless  we 
first  fully  comprehend  the  political  changes  wrought 
by  the  civil  wars  of  Rome  in  which  Julius  Caesar  de- 
feated Cneius  Pompey  at  the  battle  of  Pharsalia  and 
made  himself  dictator  and  undisputed  master  of  the 
Roman  world.  With  the  ascendency  of  Caesar  the  an- 
cient republic  became  extinct.  But  liberty  was  still 
cherished  in  the  hearts  of  Romans,  and  the  title  of  king 
was  detestable.  The  hardy  virtues  and  democratic 
simplicity  of  the  early  republic  were  still  remem- 
bered; and  patriots  like  Cicero  had  dreamed  of  the 
restoration  of  the  ancient  order  of  things.  But  Roman 
conquest  was  complete,  Roman  manners  were  corrupt, 
and  Roman  patriotism  was  paralyzed.  The  hand  of  a 
dictator  guided  by  a  single  intelligence  was  the  natural 
result  of  the  progressive  degradation  of  the  Roman 
state.  The  logical  and  inevitable  outcome  of  the  death 
of  Caesar  and  the  dissolution  of  the  Triumvirate  was 
the  regime  of  Augustus,  a  monarchy  veiled  under  re- 
publican forms.  Recognizing  Roman  horror  of  abso- 
lutism, Roman  love  of  liberty,  and  Roman  detestation 
of  kingly  power,  Augustus,  while  in  fact  an  emperor, 
claimed  to  be  only  a  plain  Roman  citizen  intrusted 
with  general  powers  of  government.  He  affected  to 
despise  public  honors,  disclaimed  every  idea  of  per- 
sonal superiority,  and  exhibited  extreme  simplicity  of 
manners  in  public  and  private  life.  This  was  the 
strategy  of  a  successful  politician  who  sought  to  con- 
ceal offensive  reality  under  the  cloak  of  a  pleasant  de- 
ception^   Great  Caesar  fallen  at  the  foot  of  Pompey's 


26  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

statue  was  a  solemn  reminder  to  Augustus  that  the 
dagger  of  the  assassin  was  still  ready  to  defend  the 
memory  of  freedom,  after  liberty  was,  in  reality,  dead. 
And  the  refusal  by  the  greatest  of  the  Romans,  at  the 
feast  of  the  Lupercal,  to  accept  a  kingly  crown  when 
it  was  thrice  oflfered  him  by  Antony,  was  a  model  of 
discreet  behavior  and  political  caution  for  the  first  and 
most  illustrious  of  the  emperors.  In  short,  Augustus 
dared  not  destroy  the  laws  or  assault  the  constitution  of 
the  state.  But  he  accomplished  his  object,  neverthe- 
less. "  He  gathered  into  his  own  hands  the  whole  hon- 
ors and  privileges,  which  the  state  had  for  centuries 
distributed  among  its  great  magistrates  and  representa- 
tives. He  became  perpetual  Princeps  Senatus,  or 
leader  of  the  legislative  house.  He  became  perpetual 
Pontifex  Maximus,  or  chief  of  the  national  religion. 
He  became  perpetual  Tribune,  or  guardian  of  the  peo- 
ple, with  his  person  thereby  made  sacred  and  invio- 
lable. He  became  perpetual  Consul,  or  supreme  mag- 
istrate over  the  whole  Roman  world,  with  the  control 
of  its  revenues,  the  disposal  of  its  armies,  and  the 
execution  of  its  laws.  And  lastly  he  became  perpetual 
Imperator,  or  military  chief,  to  whom  every  legionary 
throughout  the  world  took  the  sacramentum,  and 
whose  sword  swept  the  globe  from  Gibraltar  to  the 
Indus  and  the  Baltic.  And  yet  in  all  he  was  a  simple 
citizen — a  mere  magistrate  of  the  Republic.  Only  in 
this  one  man  was  now  visibly  accumulated  and  concen- 
trated all  that  for  centuries  had  broadened  and  ex- 
panded under  the  magnificent  abstraction  of  Rome." 
The  boundless  authority  of  Rome  was  thus  centered 


POWERS   AND    DUTIES    OF    PILATE       27 

in  the  hands  of  a  single  person.  Consuls,  tribunes, 
praetors,  proconsuls,  and  procurators  were  merely  the 
agents  and  representatives  of  this  person. 

Tiberius  Caesar,  the  political  master  of  Pontius  Pi- 
late, was  the  successor  of  Augustus  and  the  first  in- 
heritor of  his  constitution.  Under  this  constitution, 
Augustus  had  divided  the  provinces  into  two  classes. 
The  centrally  located  and  peacefully  disposed  were 
governed  by  proconsuls  appointed  by  the  senate.  The 
more  distant  and  turbulent  were  subjected  by  Augustus 
to  his  personal  control,  and  were  governed  by  procura- 
tors who  acted  as  his  deputies  or  personal  representa- 
tives. Judea  came  in  his  second  class,  and  the  real 
governor  of  his  province  was  the  emperor  himself. 
Tiberius  Cssar  was  thus  the  real  procurator  of  Judea 
at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion  and  Pilate  was  his  politi- 
cal substitute  who  did  his  bidding  and  obeyed  his  will. 
Whatever  Tiberius  might  have  done,  Pilate  might 
have  done.  We  are  thus  enabled  to  judge  the  extent 
of  Pilate's  powers;  powers  clothed  with  imperium  and 
revocable  only  by  the  great  procurator  at  Rome. 
r^  In  the  government  of  the  purely  subject  states  of  a  "^ 
province,  the  procurator  exercised  the  unlimited  juris- 
I  diction  of  the  military  imperium.  No  law  abridged^ 
the  single  and  sovereign  exercise  of  his  will.  Custom, 
however,  having  in  fact  the  force  of  law,  prescribed 
that  he  should  summon  to  his  aid  a  council  of  advisers. 
This  advisory  body  was  composed  of  two  elements: 
( I )  Roman  citizens  resident  in  this  particular  locality 
where  the  governor  was  holding  court;  and  (2)  mem- 
bers  of  his   personal   staff  known   as   the   Praetorian 


28  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Cohort.  The  governor,  in  his  conduct  of  judicial  pro- 
ceedings, might  solicit  the  opinions  of  the  members  of 
his  council.  He  might  require  them  to  vote  upon  the 
question  at  issue;  and  might,  if  he  pleased,  abide  by 
the  decision  of  the  majority.  But  no  rule  of  law  re- 
quired him  to  do  it;  it  was  merely  a  concession  and  a 
courtesy;  it  was  not  a  legal  duty. 

Again,  when  it  is  said  that  the  procurator  exercised 
the  "  unlimited  jurisdiction  of  the  military  imperium,^^ 
we  must  interpret  this,  paradoxical  though  it  may 
seem,  in  a  restricted  sense;  that  is,  we  must  recognize 
the  existence  of  exceptions  to  the  rule.  It  is  unreason- 
able to  suppose  that  Rome,  the  mother  of  laws,  ever 
contemplated  the  rule  of  despotism  and  caprice  in  the 
administration  of  justice  in  any  part  of  the  empire.  It 
is  true  that  the  effect  of  the  imperium^  "  as  applied  to 
provincial  governorship,  was  to  make  each  imperator 
a  king  in  his  own  domain  " ;  but  kings  themselves  have 
nearly  always  been  subject  to  restrictions;  and  the 
authorities  are  agreed  that  the  imperium  of  the  Roman 
procurator  of  the  time  of  Christ  was  hemmed  in  by 
many  limitations.    A  few  of  these  may  be  named. 

In  the  first  place,  the  rights  guaranteed  to  subject 
states  within  the  provincial  area  by  the  law  of  the 
province  {lex  provincia)  were  the  first  limitations 
upon  his  power. 

Again,  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  Roman  citizens 
could  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  governor,  in  cer- 
tain cases,  to  the  emperor  at  Rome.  Paul  exercised 
this  right,  because  he  was  a  Roman  citizen.^     Jesus 

^  Acts  XXV.,  xxvi. 


POWERS   AND    DUTIES    OF    PILATE       29 

could  not  appeal  from  the  judgment  of  Pilate,  because 
He  was  not  a  Roman  citizen. 

Again,  fear  of  an  aroused  and  indignant  public  sen- 
timent which  might  result  in  his  removal  by  the  em- 
peror, exercised  a  salutary  restraint  upon  the  conduct, 
if  it  did  not  abridge  the  powers  of  the  governor. 

These  various  considerations  bring  us  now  to  the 
second  question  asked  in  the  beginning  of  this  chapter: 
What  forms  of  criminal  procedure,  if  any,  were  em- 
ployed by  Pilate  in  conducting  the  Roman  trial  of 
Jesus? 

It  is  historically  true  that  Pilate  exercised,  as  proc- 
urator of  Judea,  the  unlimited  jurisdiction  of  the  mili- 
tary imperium\  and  that  this  imperium  made  him  vir- 
tually an  "  imperator,  a  king  in  his  own  domain."  It 
is  also  historically  true  that  the  inhabitants  of  the 
purely  subject  states  of  a  p,rovince,  who  were  not  them- 
selves Roman  citizens,  when  accused  of  crime,  stood 
before  a  Roman  governor  with  no  protection  except 
the  plea  of  justice  against  the  summary  exercise  of 
absolute  power.  In  other  words,  in  the  employment 
of  the  unlimited  jurisdiction  of  the  military  imperium, 
a  Roman  governor,  in  the  exercise  of  his  discretion, 
might,  in  the  case  of  non-Roman  citizens  of  a  subject 
state,  throw  all  rules  and  forms  of  law  to  the  wind, 
and  decide  the  matter  arbitrarily  and  despotically.  It 
may  be  that  Pilate  did  this  in  this  case.  But  the  best 
writers  are  agreed  that  this  was  not  the  policy  of  the 
Roman  governors  in  the  administration  of  justice  in 
the  provinces  at  the  time  of  Christ.  The  lawgiving 
genius  of  Rome  had  then  reached  maturity  and  ap- 


30  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

proximate  perfection  in  the  organization  of  its  crimi- 
nal tribunals.  It  is  not  probable,  as  before  suggested, 
that  despotism  and  caprice  would  be  systematically  tol- 
erated anywhere  in  the  Roman  world.  If  the  emper- 
ors at  Rome  were  forced,  out  of  regard  for  public 
sentiment,  to  respect  the  constitution  and  the  laws,  it  is 
reasonable  to  infer  that  their  personal  representatives 
in  the  provinces  were  under  the  same  restraint.  We 
feel  justified  then  in  asserting  that  Pilate,  in  the  trial 
of  Jesus,  should  have  applied  certain  laws  and  been 
governed  by  certain  definite  rules  of  criminal  proce- 
dure. What  were  these  rules?  A  few  preliminary 
considerations  will  greatly  aid  the  reader  in  arriving 
at  an  answer  to  this  question.  It  should  be  understood : 
( I )  That  Pilate  was  empowered  to  apply  either  Ro- 
man law  or  the  local  law  in  the  trial  of  any  case  where 
the  crime  was  an  ofifense  against  both  the  province  and 
the  empire,  as  in  the  crime  of  murder;  but  that  in  the 
case  of  treason  with  which  Jesus  was  charged  he  would 
apply  the  law  of  Rome  under  forms  of  Roman  pro- 
cedure. It  has  been  denied  that  Pilate  had  a  right  to 
apply  Jewish  law  in  the  government  of  his  province; 
but  this  denial  is  contrary  to  authority.  Innes  says: 
"  The  Roman  governor  sanctioned,  or  even  himself  ad- 
ministered, the  old  law  of  the  region."  ^  Schiirer  says: 
"  It  may  be  assumed  that  the  administration  of  the 
civil  law  was  wholly  in  the  hands  of  the  Sanhedrin 
and  native  or  local  magistrates:  Jewish  courts  decided 
according  to  Jewish  law.  But  even  in  the  criminal  law 
this  was  almost  invariably  the  case,  only  with  this  ex- 

*  "The  Trial  of  Jesus,"  p.  "]"]. 


POWERS   AND    DUTIES    OF    PILATE       31 

ception,  that  death  sentences  required  to  be  confirmed 
by  the  Roman  procurator.  In  such  cases,  the  procura- 
tor decided,  if  he  pleased,  according  to  Jewish  law."  ^ 
Greenidge  says:  "  Even  the  first  clause  of  the  Sicilian 
lexy  if  it  contained  no  reference  to  jurisdiction  by  the 
local  magistrate,  left  the  interpretation  of  the  native 
law  wholly  to  Roman  proprcBtors^  ^  It  is  thus  clearly 
evident  that  Roman  procurators  might  apply  either 
Roman  or  local  laws  in  ordinary  cases. 

(2)  That  Roman  governors  were  empowered  to 
apply  the  adjective  law  of  Rome  to  the  substantive  law 
of  the  province.  In  support  of  this  contention,  Green- 
idge says:  "The  edict  of  the  proprator  or  pro-consul, 
.  .  .  clearly  could  not  express  the  native  law  of  each 
particular  state  under  its  jurisdiction;  but  its  general- 
ity and  its  expansiveness  admitted,  as  we  shall  see,  of 
an  application  of  Roman  forms  to  the  substantive  law 
of  any  particular  city."  ^ 

(3)  That  the  criminal  procedure  employed  by  Pi- 
late in  the  trial  of  Jesus  should  have  been  the  criminal 
procedure  of  a  capital  case  tried  at  Rome,  during  the 
reign  of  Tiberius  Caesar.  This  fact  is  very  evident 
from  the  authorities.  The  trial  of  capital  cases  at 
Rome  furnished  models  for  similar  trials  in  the  prov- 
inces. In  the  exercise  of  the  unlimited  jurisdiction  of 
the  military  imperium,  Roman  governors  might  disre- 
gard these  models.  But,  ordinarily,  custom  compelled 
them  to  follow  the  criminal  precedents  of  the  Capital 

1  "The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ,"  1st  Div.,  II.  p.  74. 

2  "The  Legal  Procedure  of  Cicero's  Time,"  p.  118. 
2  "The  Legal  Procedure  of  Cicero's  Time,"  p.  118. 


32  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

of  the  empire.  The  following  authorities  support  this 
contention. 

Rosadi  says:  "  It  is  also  certain  that  in  the  provinces 
the  same  order  was  observed  in  criminal  cases  as  was 
observed  in  cases  tried  at  Rome."  ^  This  eminent  Ital- 
ian writer  cites,  in  proof  of  this  statement,  Pothier, 
Pandect.  XLVIIL  2,  n.  28. 

Greenidge  says :  "  Yet,  in  spite  of  this  absence  of 
legal  checks,  the  criminal  procedure  of  the  provinces 
was,  in  the  protection  of  the  citizen  as  in  other  respects, 
closely  modelled  on  that  of  Rome." " 

To  the  same  effect,  but  more  clearly  and  pointedly 
expressed,  is  Geib,  who  says:  "  It  is  nevertheless  true 
that  the  knowledge  which  we  have,  imperfect  though 
it  may  be,  leaves  no  doubt  that  the  courts  of  the  Italian 
municipalities  and  provinces  had,  in  all  essential  ele- 
ments, the  permanent  tribunals  (qucesttones  perpetues) 
as  models;  so  that,  in  fact,  a  description  of  the  pro- 
ceedings in  the  permanent  tribunals  is,  at  the  same 
time,  to  be  regarded  as  a  description  of  the  proceedings 
in  the  provincial  courts."  ^ 

These  permanent  tribunals  {qucestiones  perpetucB) 
were  courts  of  criminal  jurisdiction  established  at 
Rome,  and  were  in  existence  at  the  time  of  the  cruci- 
fixion. Proceedings  in  these  courts  in  capital  cases, 
were  models  of  criminal  procedure  in  the  provinces  at 
the  time  of  Christ.  It  logically  follows  then  that  if  we 
can  ascertain  the  successive  steps  in  the  trial  of  a  capi- 

^  "The  Trial  of  Jesus,"  p.  293. 

^  "The  Legal  Procedure  of  Cicero's  Time,"  p.  413. 

^"Geschichte  des  romischen  criminalprocesses." 


POWERS    AND    DUTIES    OF    PILATE       23 

tal  case  at  Rome  before  one  of  the  permanent  tribunals, 
we  have  accurate  information  of  the  exact  form  of 
criminal  procedure,  not  that  Pilate  did  employ,  but 
which  he  should  have  employed  in  the  trial  of  Jesus. 

Fortunately  for  the  purposes  of  this  treatise,  every 
step  which  Roman  law  required  in  the  trial  of  capital 
cases  at  Rome  is  as  well  known  as  the  provisions  of  any 
modern  criminal  code.  From  the  celebrated  Roman 
trials  in  which  Cicero  appeared  as  an  advocate,  may 
be  gleaned  with  unerring  accuracy  the  fullest  informa- 
tion touching  all  the  details  of  capital  trials  at  Rome  at 
the  time  of  Cicero. 

It  should  be  observed,  at  this  point,  that  the  period 
of  Roman  jurisprudence  just  referred  to  was  in  the 
closing  years  of  the  republic;  and  that  certain 
changes  in  the  organization  of  the  tribunals  as  well  as 
in  the  forms  of  procedure  were  effected  by  the  legis- 
lation of  Augustus.  But  we  have  it  upon  the  authority 
of  Rosadi  that  these  changes  were  not  radical  in  the 
case  of  the  criminal  courts  and  that  the  rules  and  regu- 
lations that  governed  procedure  in  them  during  the 
republic  remained  substantially  unchanged  under  the 
empire.  The  same  writer  tells  us  that  the  permanent 
tribunals  for  the  trial  of  capital  cases  did  not  go  out  of 
existence  until  the  third  century  of  the  Christian  era.^ 

The  following  chapter  will  be  devoted,  in  the  main, 
to  a  description  of  the  mode  of  trial  of  capital  cases  at 
Rome  before  the  permanent  tribunals  at  the  time  of 
Christ. 

*  "The  Trial  of  Jesus,"  pp.  291-93. 


CHAPTER    IV 


MODE  OF  TRIAL  IN  ROMAN  CAPITAL  CASES 


HE  reader  should  keep  clearly 
and  constantly  in  mind  the  pur- 
pose of  this  chapter:  to  describe 
the  mode  of  trial  in  capital  cases 
at  Rome  during  the  reign  of  Ti- 
berius Caesar;  and  thus  to  fur- 
nish a  model  of  criminal  proce- 
dure which  Pilate  should  have 
imitated  in  the  trial  of  Jesus  at 
Jerusalem.  In  the  last  chapter,  we  saw  that  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  permanent  tribunals  {qucestiones  per- 
petu^e)  at  Rome  furnished  models  for  the  trial  of 
criminal  cases  in  the  provinces.  It  is  now  only  neces- 
sary to  determine  what  the  procedure  of  the  permanent 
tribunals  at  the  time  of  Christ  was,  in  order  to  under- 
stand what  Pilate  should  have  done  in  the  trial  of 
Jesus.  But  the  character  of  the  qucestiones  perpetuce, 
as  well  as  the  rules  and  regulations  that  governed  their 
proceedings,  cannot  well  be  understood  without  refer- 
ence to  the  criminal  tribunals  and  modes  of  trial  in 
criminal  cases  that  preceded  them.  Roman  history 
discloses  two  distinct  periods  of  criminal  procedure 
before   the  organization   of   the  permanent  tribunals 

34 


TRIAL   IN    ROMAN    CAPITAL   CASES       3  s 

about  the  beginning  of  the  last  century  of  the  Repub- 
lic: (i)  The  period  of  the  kings  and  (2)  the  period  of 
the  early  republic.  Each  of  these  will  be  here  briefly 
considered. 

The  Regal  Period. — The  earliest  glimpses  of  Roman 
political  life  reveal  the  existence  of  a  sacred  and  mili- 
tary monarchy  in  which  the  king  is  generalissimo  of 
the  army,  chief  pontiff  of  the  national  religion,  and 
supreme  judge  in  civil  and  criminal  matters  over  the 
lives  and  property  of  the  citizens.  These  various  pow- 
ers and  attributes  are  wrapped  up  in  the  imperium. 
By  virtue  of  the  imperium,  the  king  Issued  commands 
to  the  army  and  also  exercised  the  highest  judicial 
functions  over  the  lives  and  fortunes  of  his  fellow- 
citizens.  The  kings  were  thus  military  commanders 
and  judges  in  one  person,  as  the  consuls  were  after 
them.  The  monarch  might  sit  alone  and  judge  cases 
and  impose  sentences;  but  the  trial  was  usually  a  per- 
sonal investigation  undertaken  by  him  with  the  advice 
and  aid  of  a  chosen  body  of  judges  from  the  senate  or 
the  pontifical  college.  According  to  Dionysius,  Romu- 
lus ordered  that  all  crimes  of  a  serious  nature  should 
be  tried  by  the  king,  but  that  all  lighter  offenses  should 
be  judged  by  the  senate.^  Little  confidence  can  be  re- 
posed in  this  statement,  since  the  age  and  deeds  of 
Romulus  are  exceedingly  legendary  and  mythical. 
But  it  is  historically  true  that  in  the  regal  period  of 
Rome  the  kings  were  the  supreme  judges  in  all  civil 
and  criminal  matters. 

The  Early  Republican  Period. — ^The   abolition   of 

1  Dionysius  II.  14. 


^6  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

the  monarchy  and  the  establishment  of  the  republic 
witnessed  the  distribution  of  the  powers  of  government 
formerly  exercised  by  the  king  among  a  number  of 
magistrates  and  public  officers.  Consuls,  tribunes, 
praetors,  aediles,  both  curule  and  plebeian,  exercised, 
under  the  republic,  judicial  functions  in  criminal 
matters. 

The  consuls  were  supreme  criminal  judges  at  the 
beginning  of  the  republic,  and  were  clothed  with  un- 
limited power  in  matters  of  life  and  death.  This  is 
shown  by  the  condemnation  and  execution  of  the  sons 
of  Brutus  and  their  fellow-conspirators.^  Associated 
with  the  consuls  were,  at  first,  two  annually  appointed 
quaestors  whom  they  nominated.  The  functions  of  the 
quaestors  were  as  unlimited  as  those  of  their  superiors, 
the  consuls;  but  their  jurisdiction  was  confined  chiefly 
to  criminal  matters  and  finance. 

The  tribunes,  sacred  and  inviolable  in  their  persons 
as  representatives  of  the  plebs  and  as  their  protectors 
against  patrician  oppression,  exercised  at  first  merely 
a  negative  control  over  the  regular  magistracies  of  the 
community.  But,  finally,  they  became  the  chief  pub- 
lic prosecutors  of  political  criminals. 

The  prstors,  whose  chief  jurisdiction  was  in  civil 
matters,  were  potentially  as  fully  criminal  judges  as 
the  consuls,  and  there  may  have  been  a  time  when  a 
portion  of  criminal  jurisdiction  was  actually  in  their 
hands.  In  the  later  republic,  they  presided  over  the 
queestiones  perpetuce,  permanent  criminal  tribunals. 

The  aediles  are  found  in  Roman  history  exercising 

1  Liv.  II.  iv.  5. 


TRIAL    IN    ROMAN    CAPITAL   CASES       37 

functions  of  criminal  jurisdiction,  although  their  gen- 
eral powers  were  confined  to  the  special  duties  of  car- 
ing for  the  games,  the  market,  and  the  archives. 

But  the  criminal  jurisdiction  of  the  magistrates  who 
replaced  the  king  at  the  downfall  of  the  monarchy  was 
abridged  and  almost  destroyed  by  the  famous  lex 
Valeria  {de  provocatione) .  This  law  was  proposed 
509  B.C.  by  Publius  Valerius,  one  of  the  first  consuls 
of  Rome,  and  provided  that  no  magistrate  should  have 
power  to  execute  a  sentence  of  death  against  a  Roman 
citizen  who  had  appealed  to  the  judgment  of  the  peo- 
ple in  their  public  assembly.  This  lex  was  the  magna 
charta  of  the  Romans  and  was  justly  regarded  by  them 
as  the  great  palladium  of  their  civil  liberty.  And  it 
was  this  law  that  inaugurated  the  popular  jurisdiction 
of  the  comitia.  The  result  was  that  for  more  than 
three  hundred  years  the  final  determination  of  the 
question  of  life  or  death  was  in  the  hands  of  the  people 
themselves.  From  the  passage  of  the  Valerian  law  the 
function  of  the  magistrates  was  limited  to  the  duty  of 
convincing  the  people  of  the  guilt  of  an  alleged  crimi- 
nal against  whom  they  themselves  had  already  pro- 
nounced a  preliminary  sentence.  The  magistrates 
were,  therefore,  not  so  much  judges  as  prosecutors; 
the  people  were  the  final  judges  in  the  case. 

Mode  of  Trial  in  the  Comitia,  or  Public  Assembly. 
— On  a  certain  day,  the  prosecuting  magistrate,  who 
had  himself  pronounced  the  preliminary  sentence 
against  an  accused  person  who  had  appealed  to  the 
people  in  their  public  assembly,  mounted  the  rostra, 
and  called  the  people  together  by  the  voice  of  a  herald. 


38  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

He  then  made  a  proclamation  that  on  a  certain  day 
he  would  bring  an  accusation  against  a  certain  person 
upon  a  given  charge.  At  the  same  time,  he  called  upon 
this  person  to  come  forward  and  hear  the  charges 
against  him.  The  defendant  then  presented  himself, 
listened  to  the  accusation,  and  immediately  furnished 
bond  for  his  appearance,  or  in  default  of  bail,  was 
thrown  into  prison.  Upon  the  day  announced  at  the 
opening  of  the  trial,  the  prosecuting  magistrate  again 
mounted  the  rostra,  and  summoned  the  accused  bv  a 
herald,  if  he  was  at  large,  or  had  him  brought  forth  if 
he  was  in  prison.  The  prosecutor  then  produced  evi- 
dence, oral  and  documentary,  against  the  prisoner. 
The  indictment  had  to  be  in  writing,  and  was  pub- 
lished on  three  market  days  in  the  Forum.  The 
prosecution  came  to  an  end  on  the  third  day,  and  the 
accused  then  began  his  defense  by  mounting  the  rostra 
with  his  patron  and  presenting  evidence  in  his  own 
behalf.  The  prosecutor  then  announced  that  on  a  cer- 
tain day  he  would  ask  the  people  to  render  judgment 
by  their  votes.  In  the  early  years  of  the  republic,  the 
people  voted  by  shouting  their  approval  or  disap- 
proval of  the  charges  made;  but  later  a  tablet  bearing 
one  of  the  two  letters  V.  {uti  rogas)  or  A.  {absolvo) 
was  used  as  a  ballot. 

The  effect  of  popular  jurisdiction  in  criminal  proc- 
esses at  Rome  was  in  the  nature  of  a  two-edged  sword 
that,  cut  both  ways.  It  was  beneficial  in  the  limita- 
tions it  imposed  upon  the  conduct  of  single  magis- 
trates who  were  too  often  capricious  and  despotic. 
But   this   benefit   was    purchased    at   the    price   of    a 


TRIAL   IN    ROMAN    CAPITAL    CASES       39 

kind  of  popular  despotism  not  less  dangerous  in  its 
way.  It  has  always  been  characteristic  of  popular 
assemblies  that  their  decisions  have  been  more  the  out- 
come of  passion  and  prejudice  than  the  result  of  calm 
wisdom  and  absolute  justice.  The  trouble  at  Rome 
was  that  the  people  were  both  legislators  and  judges 
in  their  public  assemblies;  and  it  nearly  always  hap- 
pened that  the  lawmakers  rose  above  and  trampled 
upon  the  very  laws  which  they  themselves  had  made. 
The  natural  offspring  of  this  state  of  things  is  either 
anarchy  or  despotism;  and  it  was  only  the  marvelous 
vitality  of  the  Roman  Commonwealth  that  enabled  it 
to  survive. 

The  reports  of  the  great  criminal  trials  before  the 
comitia  reveal  the  inherent  weakness  of  a  system  of 
popular  jurisdiction  in  criminal  matters.  Personal 
and  political  considerations  foreign  to  the  merits  of 
the  case  were  allowed  to  take  the  place  of  competent 
evidence;  and  issues  of  right  and  expediency  were  too 
frequently  mixed  up.  The  accused,  at  times,  trusted 
not  so  much  in  the  righteousness  of  his  cause  as  in  the 
feelings  of  compassion  and  prejudice  that  moved  the 
people  as  popular  judges.  And  to  excite  these  feelings 
the  most  ludicrous  and  undignified  steps  were  some- 
times taken.  The  defendant  nearly  always  appeared 
at  the  trial  in  mourning  garb,  frequently  let  his  hair 
and  beard  grow  long,  and  often  exhibited  the  scars 
and  wounds  received  in  battle  whilst  fighting  for  his 
country.  He  sometimes  offered  prayers  to  the  immor- 
tal gods  and  wept  bitterly;  at  other  times  he  caused 
his  children  and  other  relatives  to  appear  at  the  trial, 


40  THE   TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

wailing,  and  tearing  their  clothes.  Not  content  with 
presenting  all  the  pathetic  features  of  his  own  life,  he 
left  nothing  undone  to  expose  his  opponents  to  hatred 
and  contempt.  It  thus  happened  that  many  of  the 
great  criminal  causes  of  Rome  were  mere  farcical  pro- 
ceedings.   A  few  instances  may  be  cited. 

Horatius,  though  tried  in  the  time  of  the  third 
Roman  king,  was  pardoned  by  the  people  for  the  mur- 
der of  his  sister  because  of  his  heroic  deed  in  single 
combat  with  the  three  Curiatii,  and  because  his  father 
had  lost  three  children  in  the  service  of  the  state. 

In  the  year  98,  Manlius  Aquillius,  the  pacificator  of 
Sicily,  was  tried  for  embezzlement.  Marcus  Antonius, 
his  advocate,  ended  his  argument  for  the  defense  by 
tearing  the  tunic  of  Aquillius  to  show  the  breast  of  the 
veteran  warrior  covered  with  scars.  The  people  were 
moved  to  tears  and  Aquillius  was  acquitted,  although 
the  evidence  was  very  clear  against  him. 

In  the  trial  of  M.  Manlius,  384  B.C.,  new  tactics 
were  employed.  The  accused  refused  to  appear  in 
mourning.  There  was  no  weeping  in  his  behalf.  On 
the  other  hand,  Manlius  relied  upon  his  services  to  the 
state  for  acquittal.  He  brought  forward  four  hundred 
citizens  who  by  his  generosity  he  had  saved  from  bond- 
age for  debt;  he  exhibited  the  spoils  taken  from  thirty 
slain  enemies,  also  military  decorations  received  for 
bravery  in  battle — among  them  two  mural  and  eight 
civic  crowns;  he  then  produced  many  citizens  rescued 
by  him  from  the  hands  of  the  enemy;  he  then  bared 
his  breast  and  exhibited  the  scars  received  by  him  in 
war;  and,  lastly,  turning  toward  the  Capitol,  he  im- 


TRIAL    IN    ROMAN    CAPITAL   CASES       41 

plored  Jupiter  to  protect  him,  and  to  infuse,  at  this 
moment,  into  the  Roman  people,  his  judges,  the  same 
spirit  of  courage  and  patriotism  that  had  given  him 
strength  to  save  the  city  of  Rome  and  his  w^hole  coun- 
try from  the  hands  of  the  Gauls.  He  begged  the  peo- 
ple to  keep  their  eyes  fixed  on  the  Capitol  while  they 
were  pronouncing  sentence  against  him  to  whom  they 
owed  life  and  liberty.  It  is  said  that  his  prosecutors 
despaired  of  convicting  him  amidst  such  surroundings, 
and  adjourned  the  trial  to  another  place,  where  the 
Capitol  could  not  be  seen;  and  that  thereupon  the  con- 
viction of  Manlius  was  secured  and  his  condemnation 
pronounced. 

In  the  year  185  B.C.,  the  tribune  M.  Naevius,  at  the 
instigation  of  Cato,  accused  Scipio  Africanus  before 
the  tribes  of  having  been  bribed  to  secure  a  dishonor- 
able peace.  It  was  clearly  evident  that  a  charge  of  this 
kind  could  not  well  be  sustained  by  evidence;  but  it 
was  believed  that  a  conviction  could  be  secured  by  an 
appeal  to  the  passion  and  prejudice  of  the  multitude. 
But  this  advantage  operated  as  greatly  in  favor  of 
Scipio  as  it  did  in  favor  of  his  accusers.  And  he  did 
not  fail  to  use  the  advantage  to  the  fullest  extent.  In 
seeming  imitation  of  M.  Manlius,  two  hundred  years 
before,  he  appealed  for  acquittal  to  the  people  on  ac- 
count of  his  public  services.  He  refused  to  appear  in 
mourning,  offered  no  evidence  in  his  own  behalf, 
nor  did  he  exhibit  the  usual  humility  of  an  accused 
Roman  before  his  countrymen.  With  proud  disdain, 
he  spurned  the  unworthy  imputation  of  bribery,  and 
pointed  the  people  to  the  magnificent  achievements  of 


42  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

his  brilliant  public  career.  He  reminded  them  that  the 
day  of  the  trial  was  itself  the  anniversary  of  his  victory 
over  the  greatest  enemy  that  Rome  ever  had,  at  Zama. 
It  was  degrading,  he  exclaimed,  both  to  him  and  to 
the  Roman  nation,  to  bring  such  a  charge  on  this  day 
against  the  man  to  whom  it  was  due  that  the  Common- 
wealth of  Rome  still  existed.  He  refused  to  lower 
himself,  he  said,  by  listening  to  the  insolent  charges  of 
a  vulgar  brawler  who  had  never  done  anything  for  the 
state.  He  declared  that  instead  he  would  repair  at 
once  to  the  temple  of  Jupiter  and  render  thanks  for  his 
victory  over  Hannibal  to  the  protecting  gods  of  his 
country.  With  these  words,  he  left  the  Forum  and 
went  to  the  Capitol  and  from  there  to  his  house,  accom- 
panied by  the  great  majority  of  the  people,  while  the 
accusing  tribune  and  his  official  staff  were  left  alone  in 
the  market  place. 

The  inevitable  result  of  these  cases  of  miscarriage  of 
justice,  in  which  patriotic  bravado  and  rhetorical  clap- 
trap took  the  place  of  legal  rules,  was  a  desire  and  de- 
mand for  the  reform  of  criminal  procedure.  Besides, 
it  had  ever  been  found  troublesome  and  inconvenient 
to  summon  the  whole  body  of  the  Roman  people  to  try 
ordinary  offenses.  It  was  only  in  cases  of  great  gravity 
that  the  ponderous  machinery  of  the  comitia  centuriata 
could  be  set  in  motion.  This  difficulty  was  increased 
with  the  growth  of  the  republic,  in  which  crimes  also 
grew  in  number  and  magnitude.  The  necessity  for  the 
reform  of  the  criminal  law  resulted  in  the  institution 
of  permanent  tribunals  (quastiones  perpetuce).  A 
series   of  legal   enactments  accomplished   this    result. 


TRIAL   IN    ROMAN    CAPITAL   CASES       43 

The  earliest  law  that  created  a  permanent  queestto  was 
the  lex  Calpurnia  of  149  B.C.  And  it  was  the  proceed- 
ings in  these  courts,  which  we  shall  now  describe,  that 
should  have  guided  Pilate  in  the  trial  of  Jesus. 

Mode  of  Trial  in  the  Permanent  Tribunals. — ^We 
shall  attempt  to  trace  in  the  remaining  pages  of  this 
chapter  the  successive  steps  in  the  trial  of  criminal 
cases  before  the  permanent  tribunals  at  Rome. 

First  Stage  (postulatio) . — A  Roman  criminal  trial 
before  a  qucestio  perpetua  commenced  with  an  appli- 
cation to  the  presiding  magistrate,  the  praetor  or  the 
index  qutBstionis,  for  permission  to  bring  a  criminal 
charge  against  a  certain  person.  The  technical  Latin 
expression  for  this  request  to  prosecute  is  postulatio. 
It  should  be  here  noted  that  State's  attorneys  or  public 
prosecutors,  in  a  modern  sense,  were  not  known  to  the 
Romans  at  this  time.  Private  citizens  took  upon  them- 
selves public  prosecutions  in  behalf  of  the  state.  They 
were  encouraged  to  do  this  from  motives  of  personal 
profit  as  well  as  patriotic  interest  in  the  welfare  of  the 
community.  As  young  men  in  modern  times,  just  ad- 
mitted to  the  bar,  often  accept  criminal  cases  by  assign- 
ment from  the  court  in  order  to  make  a  beginning  in 
their  professional  careers,  so  young  Roman  nobles  in 
ancient  times  sought  to  make  reputations  for  them- 
selves by  accusing  and  prosecuting  public  delinquents. 
And  not  only  professional  reputation,  but  financial 
compensation  as  well  could  be  gained  in  this  way. 
The  Roman  laws  of  the  time  of  Cicero  provided  that 
a  successful  prosecutor  should  receive  one-fourth  part 
of  the  property  confiscated  or  the  fine  imposed.     A 


44  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Macedonian  inscription  offered  a  reward  of  200 
denarii  to  the  prosecutor  who  should  bring  to  justice 
the  desecrators  of  a  tomb/ 

Second  Stage  [divinatio) . — It  often  happened  that 
more  than  one  accuser  desired  to  prosecute  a  single 
offense;  but  more  than  one  prosecutor  was  not  per- 
mitted by  Roman  law  unless  there  was  more  than  one 
crime  charged.  Then,  in  case  of  a  concurrence  of 
would-be  accusers,  a  preliminary  trial  was  had  to  de- 
termine which  one  of  these  was  best  fitted  to  bring  the 
accusation.  This  initial  hearing  was  known  in  Roman 
law  as  the  divinatio.  It  was  indeed  more  than  a  mere 
hearing;  it  was  a  regular  trial  in  which  the  question  of 
the  fitness  of  the  different  candidates  for  the  position  of 
delator  was  argued  before  the  president  and  the  jury. 
This  jury  was  in  many  cases  distinct  from  the  one  that 
finally  tried  the  case  on  the  merits.  The  purpose  of 
the  whole  proceeding  known  as  the  divinatio  was  to 
secure  a  prosecutor  who  was  at  once  both  able  and  sin- 
cere; and  both  these  qualities  were  generally  very 
strenuously  urged  by  all  those  who  desired  to  assume 
the  role  of  accuser.  Indeed  all  personal  qualifications 
involving  the  mental  and  moral  attributes  of  the 
would-be  prosecutors  were  pointedly  urged.  At  the 
hearing,  the  different  candidates  frequently  became 
animated  and  even  bitter  opponents  of  each  other. 
Crimination  and  recrimination  then  followed  as  a 
natural  consequence.  An  applicant  might  show  that 
he  was  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  affairs  of  a 
province,   as   a   special   fitness   in   the   prosecution   of 

^  Heuzey,  "Miss,  archeol.  de  Maced.,"  p.  38. 


TRIAL   IN    ROMAN    CAPITAL    CASES       45 

a  public  official  for  extortion  in  that  province.  An 
opponent,  on  the  other  hand,  might  show  that  said 
applicant  had  been  associated  with  said  official  In 
the  government  of  the  province  and  had  been,  and 
was  now,  on  the  friendliest  terms  with  him.  After 
the  meritorious  qualifications  of  all  the  claimants  had 
been  presented,  the  president  and  jury  rendered  their 
decision.  The  details  of  the  evidence  afifecting  the 
merits  of  the  charge  were  not  considered  at  this  pre- 
liminary trial.  Only  such  facts  were  considered  as 
affected  the  personal  qualifications  of  the  different  can- 
didates for  the  place  of  accuser.  When  these  qualifica- 
tions were  about  equally  balanced  in  point  of  merit 
between  two  applicants,  the  abler  speaker  was  gener- 
ally chosen. 

Third  Stage  (nominis  delatio). — It  frequently  hap- 
pened that  the  postulatio,  the  request  to  prosecute,  was 
not  followed  by  the  divinatio,  the  preliminary  hearing 
on  the  merits  of  dififerent  applicants,  because  there  was 
only  one  would-be  accuser;  and  his  qualifications  were 
beyond  dispute.  In  such  a  case,  when  a  request  to 
bring  a  criminal  charge  against  a  certain  person  had 
been  presented  by  a  citizen  to  the  praetor,  there  fol- 
lowed, after  a  certain  interval  of  time,  a  private  hear- 
ing before  the  president  of  the  court  for  the  purpose  of 
gaining  fuller  and  more  definite  information  concern- 
ing the  charge.  This  private  proceeding  was  styled 
the  nominis  or  criminis  delatio,  and  took  place  before 
the  president  alone.  Its  main  object  was  to  secure  a 
specification  of  the  personality  of  the  accused  as  well 
as  of  the  charges  brought  against  him.    At  this  stage 


46  THE   TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

of  the  trial  the  presence  of  the  accused  person  was 
necessary,  unless  he  was  absent  under  valid  excuse. 
The  lex  Memmia,  passed  in  the  year  114  B.C.,  per- 
mitted a  delinquent  to  plead  that  he  was  absent  from 
Rome  on  public  business,  as  an  excuse  for  not  appear- 
ing at  the  nominis  delatio.  In  the  year  58  B.C.,  the 
tribune  L.  Antistius  impeached  Julius  Caesar.  But  the 
colleagues  of  Antistius  excused  Caesar  from  personal 
attendance  because  he  was  absent  in  the  service  of  the 
state  in  Gaul.  But,  if  the  accused  appeared  at  the 
nominis  delatio^  the  prosecutor  interrogated  him  at 
length  concerning  the  facts  of  the  crime.  The  purpose 
of  this  interrogation  (interrogatio)  was  to  satisfy  the 
president  that  there  was  a  prima  facie  case  to  carry 
before  the  regular  tribunal  in  open  trial.  The  proceed- 
ings of  the  nominis  delatio  were  thus  in  the  nature  of 
a  modern  Grand  Jury  investigation,  instituted  to  deter- 
mine if  a  serious  prosecution  should  be  had. 

Fourth  Stage  (inscriptio). — If  the  interrogation 
convinced  the  president  that  the  prosecutor  had  a 
prima  facie  case  to  take  before  the  permanent  tribunal, 
he  framed  a  form  of  indictment  called  the  inscriptio. 
This  indictment  was  signed  by  the  chief  prosecutor 
and  also  by  a  number  of  witnesses  against  the  accused 
called  subscriptores.  The  charge  was  now  definitely 
fixed;  and,  from  this  moment,  it  was  the  only  ofifense 
that  could  be  prosecuted  at  the  trial.  The  drawing  up 
of  this  charge  by  the  president  was  similar  to  the  fram- 
ing of  an  indictment  by  a  modern  Grand  Jury. 

Fifth  Stage  {nominis  receptio). — After  the  indict- 
ment or  inscription  had  been  framed,  it  was  formally 


TRIAL    IN    ROMAN    CAPITAL    CASES       47 

received  by  the  president.  This  act  was  styled  the 
nominis  receptio  and  corresponds,  in  a  general  way, 
with  the  presentment  of  an  indictment  by  a  modern 
Grand  Jury.  When  the  nominis  receptio  was  com- 
plete, the  case  was  said  to  be  in  judicio,  and  the  accused 
was  said  to  be  in  reatu.  The  president  then  fixed  a  day 
certain  for  the  appearance  of  the  accused  and  the  be- 
ginning of  the  trial.  The  time  fixed  was  usually  ten 
days  from  the  nominis  receptio.  However,  a  longer 
time  was  allowed  if  evidence  had  to  be  secured  from 
beyond  the  sea.  Thirty  days  were  allowed  the  accusers 
in  the  prosecution  of  Scaurus.  Cicero  was  given  one 
hundred  and  ten  days  to  secure  evidence  against 
Verres;  but  he  actually  employed  only  sixty.  The 
time  granted  the  prosecutor  was  also  required  by  the 
law  to  be  utilized  by  the  defendant  in  preparing  his 
case. 

The  preliminary  steps  in  the  prosecution  were  now 
complete,  and  the  accused  awaited  the  day  of  trial.  In 
the  meantime,  he  was  allowed  to  go  at  large,  even 
when  charged  with  a  grave  offense  like  murder.  Im- 
prisonment to  prevent  escape  had  almost  ceased  at  the 
time  of  which  we  write.  If  the  evidence  against  the 
accused  was  weak,  it  was  felt  that  he  would  certainly 
appear  at  the  trial.  If  the  evidence  against  him  was 
very  strong,  it  was  thought  that  he  would  seek  to  es- 
cape a  sentence  of  death  in  voluntary  exile,  a  step 
which  Romans  always  encouraged,  as  they  were 
averse,  at  all  times,  to  putting  a  Roman  citizen  to 
death. 

Sixth  Stage  (citatio). — At  the  expiration  of  the  time 


48  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

designated  by  the  president  for  the  beginning  of  the 
trial,  the  proceedings  before  the  judges  began.  All  the 
necessary  parties,  including  the  judges  or  jurors,  were 
summoned  by  a  herald  to  appear.  This  procedure  was 
termed  the  citatio.  Strange  to  say,  if  the  accused 
failed  to  appear  the  case  could  proceed  without  him. 
The  reason  for  the  requirement  of  his  presence  at  the 
nominis  Jelatio,  but  not  at  the  trial  is  not  clear;  es- 
pecially when  viewed  in  the  light  of  a  modern  trial  in 
which  the  defendant  must  be  present  at  every  impor- 
tant step  in  the  proceedings.  Under  Roman  procedure, 
the  presence  of  the  defendant  was  not  necessary, 
whether  he  was  in  voluntary  exile,  or  was  obstinately 
absent.  In  52  B.C.,  Milo  was  condemned  in  his  ab- 
sence; and  we  read  in  Plutarch  that  the  assassins  of 
Caesar  were  tried  in  their  absence,  43  B.C. 

Excusable  absence  necessitated  an  adjournment  of 
the  case.  The  chief  grounds  for  an  adjournment  were: 
(i)  Absence  from  the  city  in  the  public  service;  (2) 
that  the  accused  was  compelled  to  appear  in  another 
court  on  the  same  day;  (3)  illness. 

The  absence  of  the  accused  did  not  prevent  the 
prosecution  of  the  case,  but  the  nonappearance  of  the 
prosecutor  on  the  day  fixed  for  the  beginning  of 
the  trial  usually  terminated  the  proceedings  at  once. 
The  fact  that  the  case  had  to  be  dismissed  if  the  accuser 
failed  to  appear  only  serves  to  illustrate  how  dependent 
the  state  was  on  the  sincerity  of  the  citizen  who  under- 
took the  prosecution.  The  obligations  of  the  prose- 
cutor honestly  and  vigorously  to  follow  up  a  suit  which 
he  had  set  in  motion  were  felt  to  be  so  serious  a  matter 


TRIAL   IN    ROMAN    CAPITAL    CASES       49 

by  the  Romans  that  special  laws  were  passed  to  hold 
him  in  the  line  of  duty.  The  lex  Remmia  provided 
that  if  any  citizen  knowingly  accused  another  citizen 
falsely  of  a  crime,  the  accuser  should  be  prosecuted 
for  calumny  {calumnia).  It  further  provided  that, 
in  case  of  conviction,  the  letter  K  should  be  branded 
on  the  forehead  of  the  condemned.  Such  laws  were 
found  necessary  to  protect  the  good  name  of  Roman 
citizens  against  bad  men  who  desired  to  use  the  legal 
machinery  of  the  state  to  gratify  private  malevolence 
against  their  enemies.  It  may  thus  be  seen  that  the  sys- 
tem which  permitted  public  prosecutions  on  the  mo- 
tion of  private  citizens  was  attended  by  both  good  and 
bad  results.  Cicero  regarded  such  a  system  as  a  posi- 
tive benefit  to  the  state.^  Its  undoubted  effect  was  to 
place  a  check  upon  coiruption  in  public  office  by  sub- 
jecting the  acts  of  public  officials  to  the  scrutiny  and, 
if  need  be,  to  the  censure  of  every  man  in  the  nation. 
On  the  other  hand,  accusers  in  public  prosecutions 
came  finally  to  be  identified,  in  the  public  mind,  with 
coarse  and  vulgar  informers  whose  only  motive  in 
making  public  accusations  was  to  create  private  gain. 
So  thoroughly  were  they  despised  that  one  of  the  para- 
sites of  Plautus  scornfully  exclaims  that  he  would  not 
exchange  his  vocation,  though  low  and  groveling,  with 
that  of  the  man  who  makes  a  legal  proceeding  "  his  net 
wherein  to  catch  another  man's  goods."  ^ 

Seventh    Stage    {impaneling    the   judges). — But    if 

1  Accusatores  multos  esse  in  civitate  utile  est,  ut  metu  contineatur  audacia 
(pro  Roscio  Amer.  20). 

2  Persa  V.  63  seq. 


50  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

the  prosecutor  appeared  in  due  time,  the  trial  formally 
began  by  the  impaneling  of  the  judges.  This  was  usu- 
ally done  by  the  praetor  or  index  qufBstionis  who,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  trial,  placed  the  names  of  the  com- 
plete panel  of  jurors,  inscribed  on  white  tablets,  into 
an  urn,  and  then  drew  out  a  certain  number.  Both 
prosecutor  and  accused  had  the  right  to  challenge  a 
limited  number,  as  the  names  were  being  drawn.  The 
number  of  challenges  allowed  varied  from  time  to 
time. 

Eighth  Stage  (beginning  of  the  trial). — ^When  the 
judges  had  been  impaneled,  the  regular  proceedings 
began.  The  place  of  trial  was  the  Forum.  The  curule 
chair  of  the  praetor  and  the  benches  of  the  judges,  con- 
stituting the  tribunal,  were  here  placed.  On  the 
ground  in  front  of  the  raised  platform  upon  which  the 
praetor  and  judges  sat,  were  arranged  the  benches  of 
the  parties,  their  advocates  and  witnesses.  Like  the 
ancient  Hebrew  law,  Roman  law  required  that  crimi- 
nal cases  should  be  tried  only  by  daylight,  that  is,  be- 
tween daybreak  and  one  hour  before  sunset.  At  the 
opening  of  the  trial,  the  prosecutor,  backed  by  the  sub- 
scriptores,  and  the  accused,  supported  by  his  patrons 
and  advocates,  appeared  before  the  tribunal. 

In  a  modern  criminal  trial  the  case  is  opened  by  the 
introduction  of  testimony  which  is  followed  by  regular 
speeches  of  counsel  for  the  people  and  the  defendant. 
In  those  jurisdictions  where  opening  addresses  are  re- 
quired before  the  examination  of  the  witnesses,  the 
purpose  is  to  inform  the  jury  of  the  facts  which  it  is 
proposed  to  prove.     Argument  and  characterization 


TRIAL   IN    ROMAN    CAPITAL    CASES       51 

are  not  permitted  in  these  opening  speeches.  The  real 
speeches  in  which  argument  and  illustration  are  per- 
mitted come  after  the  evidence  has  been  introduced. 
The  purpose  of  these  closing  speeches  is  to  assist  the 
jury  in  determining  matters  of  fact  from  conflicting 
testimony. 

Under  the  Roman  system  of  trial  in  criminal  cases, 
the  order  was  reversed.  The  regular  speeches  contain- 
ing argument,  characterization,  and  illustration,  as 
well  as  a  statement  of  the  facts  proposed  to  be  proved, 
were  made  in  the  very  beginning.  Evidence  was  then 
introduced  to  show  that  the  orators  had  told  the  truth 
in  their  speeches. 

It  is  not  practicable  in  this  place  to  discuss  the 
kinds  and  relevancy  of  evidence  under  Roman  crim- 
inal procedure.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  slaves  were  al- 
ways examined  under  torture. 

The  close  of  the  evidence  was  followed  by  the  judg- 
ment of  the  tribunal. 

Ninth  Stage  (voting  of  the  judges). — The  judges 
voted  by  ballot,  and  a  majority  of  votes  decided  the 
verdict.  The  balloting  was  done  with  tablets  contain- 
ing the  letters  A.  (absolvo),  C.  (condemno)  and  N.  L. 
(non  liquet).  When  the  votes  had  been  cast,  the  tab- 
lets were  then  counted  by  the  president  of  the  tribunal. 
If  the  result  indicated  a  condemnation,  he  pronounced 
the  word  fecisse]  if  an  acquittal,  the  phrase,  non  fecisse 
videtur;  if  a  doubtful  verdict  {non  liquet),  the  words 
amplius  esse  cognoscendum.  The  result  of  a  doubtful 
(non  liquet)  verdict  was  a  retrial  of  the  case  at  some 
future  time. 


52  THE   TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

Such  were  the  main  features  of  the  trial  of  a  capital 
case  at  Rome  at  the  date  of  the  crucifixion.  Such  was 
the  model  which,  according  to  the  best  authorities, 
Pilate  was  bound  to  follow  in  the  trial  of  Jesus.  Did 
he  imitate  this  model?  Did  he  observe  these  rules  and 
regulations?    We  shall  see. 


CHAPTER   V 


ROMAN   FORMS  OF  PUNISHMENT 


CCORDING  to  Gibbon,  the 
laws  of  the  Twelve  Tables,  like 
the  statutes  of  Draco,  were  writ- 
ten in  blood.  These  famous  de- 
crees sanctioned  the  frightful 
principle  of  the  lex  talionis]  and 
prescribed  for  numerous  crimes 
many  horrible  forms  of  punish- 
ment. The  hurling  from  the 
Tarpeian  Rock  was  mild  in  comparison  with  other 
modes  of  execution.  The  traitor  to  his  country  had  his 
hands  tied  behind  his  back,  his  head  shrouded  in  a  veil, 
was  then  scourged  by  a  lictor,  and  was  afterwards  cru- 
cified, in  the  midst  of  the  Forum  by  being  nailed  to  the 
arbor  infelix.  A  malicious  incendiary,  on  a  principle 
of  retaliation,  was  delivered  to  the  flames.  He  was 
burned  to  death  by  being  wrapped  in  a  garment  cov- 
ered with  pitch  which  was  then  set  on  fire.^  A  parri- 
cide was  cast  into  the  Tiber  or  the  sea,  inclosed  in  a 
sack,  to  which  a  cock,  a  viper,  a  dog,  and  a  monkey  had 
been  successively  added  as  fit  companions  in  death.- 
But  the  development  of  Roman  jurisprudence  and 

^  Fiske,  "Manual  of  Classical  Literature,"  III.  Sec.  264. 
2  Gibbon,  "The  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,"  Chap.  XLIV. 

S3 


54  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

the  growth  of  Roman  civilization  witnessed  a  gradual 
diminution  in  the  severity  of  penal  sanctions,  in  the 
case  of  free  citizens,  until  voluntary  exile  was  the  worst 
punishment  to  which  a  wearer  of  the  toga  was  com- 
pelled to  submit.  The  Porcian  and  Valerian  laws  pro- 
hibited the  magistrates  from  putting  any  Roman  citi- 
zen to  death.  The  principle  underlying  these  laws  was 
the  offspring  of  a  proud  and  patriotic  sentiment  which 
exempted  the  masters  of  the  world  from  the  extreme 
penalties  reserved  for  barbarians  and  slaves.  Green- 
idge,  interpreting  Cicero,  very  elegantly  expresses  this 
sentiment:  "  It  is  a  f acinus  to  put  a  Roman  citizen  in 
bonds,  a  scelus  to  scourge  him,  prope  parriciditim  to 
put  him  to  death." 

The  subject  of  this  volume  limits  the  discussion  in 
this  chapter  to  a  single  Roman  punishment:  Cruci- 
fixion. Around  this  word  gather  the  most  frightful 
memories  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  sweetest  and  sub- 
limest  hopes  of  the  human  race.  A  thorough  appre- 
ciation of  the  trial  of  Jesus,  it  is  felt,  renders  necessary 
a  comparatively  exhaustive  treatment  of  the  punish- 
ment in  which  all  the  horrors  and  illegalities  of  the 
proceedings  against  Him  culminated. 

History. — Tradition  attributes  the  origin  of  cruci- 
fixion, the  most  frightful  and  inhuman  form  of  punish- 
ment ever  known,  to  a  woman,  Semiramis,  Queen  of 
Assyria.  We  are  reminded  by  this  that  quartering, 
drawing  at  a  horse's  tail,  breaking  on  the  wheel,  burn- 
ing and  torture  with  pincers,  were  provisions  in  a 
codex  bearing  the  name  of  a  woman:  Maria  Theresa.^ 

^  Const,  crim.  Theres.,  Art.  5,  par.  2. 


ROMAN    FORMS    OF    PUNISHMENT        55 

Crucifixion  was  practiced  by  the  ancient  Egyptians, 
Carthaginians,  Persians,  Germans,  Assyrians,  Greeks, 
and  Romans.  The  Romans  employed  this  form  of 
punishment  on  a  colossal  scale.  The  Roman  general 
Varus  crucified  2,000  Jews  in  one  day  at  the  gates  of 
Jerusalem.  The  close  of  the  war  with  Spartacus,  the 
gladiator,  witnessed  the  crucifixion  of  10,000  slaves  be- 
tween Capua  and  Rome. 

Crucifixion,  as  a  form  of  punishment,  was  unknown 
to  the  ancient  Hebrews.  The  penalty  of  death  was 
enforced  among  them  by  burning,  strangling,  decapi- 
tation, and  stoning.  The  "  hanging  "  of  criminals  "  on 
a  tree,"  mentioned  in  Deut.  xxi.  22,  was  a  posthumous 
indignity  offered  the  body  of  the  criminal  after  death 
by  stoning,  and  struck  horror  to  the  soul  of  every  pious 
Israelite  who  beheld  it.  Among  the  Romans  also  deg- 
radation was  a  part  of  the  infliction,  since  crucifixion 
was  peculiarly  a  supplicium  servile.  Only  the  vilest 
criminals,  among  free  men,  such  as  were  guilty  of  rob- 
bery, piracy,  assassination,  perjury,  sedition,  treason, 
and  desertion  from  the  army,  met  death  in  this  way. 
The  jus  civitatis  protected  Roman  citizens  against  this 
punishment. 

Mode  of  Crucifixion. — A  sentence  of  death  having 
been  pronounced  by  a  Roman  magistrate  or  tribunal, 
scourging  became  a  preliminary  to  execution.  This 
was  done  with  the  terrible  flagellum  into  which  the 
soldiers  frequently  stuck  nails,  pieces  of  bone,  and 
other  hard  substances  to  heighten  the  pain  which  was 
often  so  intense  as  to  produce  death.  The  victim  was 
gene/ally  bound  to  a  column  to  be  scourged.     It  was 


56  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

claimed  by  Jerome,  Prudentius,  Gregory  of  Tours,  and 
others  that  they  had  seen  the  one  to  which  Jesus  was 
bound  before  His  scourging  began.  After  the  flagella- 
tion, the  prisoner  was  conducted  to  the  place  of  execu- 
tion. This  was  outside  the  city,  often  in  some  public 
road,  or  other  conspicuous  place  like  the  Campus 
Martius  at  Rome.  The  criminal  was  compelled  to 
carry  his  own  cross;  and  when  he  had  arrived  at  the 
place  of  crucifixion,  he  was  compelled  to  watch  the 
preparations  for  his  torture.  Before  his  eyes  and  in  his 
presence,  the  cross  was  driven  into  the  ground;  and, 
after  having  been  stripped  naked,  he  was  lifted  upon 
and  nailed  to  it.  It  sometimes  happened  that  he  was 
stretched  upon  it  first  and  then  lifted  with  it  from  the 
ground.  The  former  method  was  the  more  common, 
however,  as  it  was  desired  to  strike  terror  into  the  vic- 
tim by  the  sight  of  the  erection  of  the  cross.  The  body 
was  fastened  to  the  cross  by  nails  driven  into  the  hands 
and  sometimes  into  the  feet;  more  frequently,  however, 
the  feet  were  merely  bound  by  cords. 

The  pictures  of  crosses  in  works  of  art  are  misrepre- 
sentations, in  that  they  are  too  large  and  too  high.  The 
real  cross  of  antiquity  was  very  little  longer  than  the 
victim,  whose  head  was  near  the  top,  and  whose  feet 
often  hung  only  twelve  or  fifteen  inches  from  the 
ground.  Pictorial  art  is  also  false  because  it  fails  to 
show  the  projecting  beam  from  near  the  center  of  the 
cross  upon  which  the  criminal  sat.  That  there  was 
such  a  beam  is  attested  by  the  almost  unanimous  voice 
of  antiquity. 

Crucifixion  was  conducted,  under  Roman  auspices, 


ROMAN    FORMS    OF    PUNISHMENT        57 

by  a  carnifex,  or  hangman,  assisted  by  a  band  of  sol- 
diers. At  Rome,  execution  was  done  under  the  super- 
vision of  the  Triumviri  Capitales.  The  duty  of  the^ 
soldiers  was  not  only  to  erect  the  cross  and  nail  the  vie/ 
tim  to  it,  but  also  to  watch  him  until  he  was  dead; 
This  was  a  necessary  precaution  to  prevent  friends  and 
relatives  from  taking  the  criminal  down  and  from 
carrying  him  away,  since  he  sometimes  continued  to 
live  upon  the  cross  during  several  days.  If  taken  down 
in  time,  the  suffering  man  might  easily  be  resuscitated 
and  restored  to  health.  Josephus  tells  us  that  three 
victims  were  ordered  to  be  taken  down  by  Titus  at  his 
request,  and  that  one  of  them  recovered.  "  In  the  later 
persecutions  of  the  Christians,  the  guards  remained 
four  or  six  days  by  the  dead,  in  order  to  secure  them 
to  the  wild  beasts  and  to  cut  off  all  possibility  of  burial 
and  resurrection;  and  in  Lyons  the  Christians  were  not 
once  able  by  offers  of  much  gold  to  obtain  the  privilege 
of  showing  compassion  upon  the  victims  of  the  pagan 
popular  fury.  Sometimes,  however,  particularly  on 
festival  days,  e.  g.,  the  birthdays  of  the  emperors,  the 
corpse  was  given  up  to  the  friends  of  the  deceased, 
either  for  money  or  without  money,  although  even 
Augustus  could  be  cruel  enough  to  turn  a  deaf  ear  to 
the  entreaties  of  the  condemned  for  sepulture."  * 

Roman  records  tell  us  that  the  soldiers  frequently 
hastened  death  by  breaking  the  legs  of  the  criminal;  at 
other  times,  fires  were  built  about  the  cross  beneath 
him;  and,  again,  wild  beasts  were  turned  loose  upon 
him. 

1  Keim,  "Jesus  of  Nazara,"  vol.  vi.  p.  250. 


58  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

It  was  the  general  custom  to  allow  the  body  to  re- 
main and  rot  upon  the  cross,  or  to  be  devoured  by  wild 
beasts  and  birds  of  prey.  "  Distracted  relatives  and 
friends  saw  the  birds  of  prey  attack  the  very  faces  of 
those  whom  they  loved;  and  piety  often  took  pains  to 
scare  away  the  birds  by  day  and  the  beasts  by  night, 
or  to  outwit  the  guards  that  watched  the  dead."  ^ 

Sepulture  was  generally  forbidden  by  law,  though 
there  were  exceptions  to  the  rule.  At  the  request  of 
Joseph  of  Arimathea,  Pilate  consented  that  Jesus 
should  be  taken  down  and  buried."  A  national  excep- 
tion seems  also  to  have  been  made  in  the  case  of  the 
Jews  on  account  of  the  requirements  of  Deut.  xxi. 
22,  23. 

Pathology. — The  following  pathological  phases  of 
death  by  crucifixion  are  from  a  treatise  by  the  cele- 
brated physician,  Richter  (in  John's  "  Bibl.  Arch."), 
which  have  been  reproduced  in  Strong  and  McClin- 
tock's  "  Cyclopedia  " : 

"  (i)  The  unnatural  position  and  violent  tension  of 
the  body,  which  cause  a  painful  sensation  from  the 
least  motion. 

"  (2)  The  nails,  being  driven  through  parts  of  the 
hands  and  feet  which  are  full  of  nerves  and  tendons 
(and  yet  at  a  distance  from  the  heart)  create  the  most 
exquisite  anguish. 

"  (3)  The  exposure  of  so  many  wounds  and  lacera- 
tions brings  on  inflammation,  which  tends  to  become 
gangrene,  and  every  movement  increases  the  poign- 
ancy of  suffering. 

^Kcim,  "Jesus  of  Nazara,"  vol.  vi.  p.  250.  ^  John  xix.  38-41. 


ROMAN    FORMS    OF    PUNISHMENT        59 

"  (4)  In  the  distended  parts  of  the  body,  more  blood 
flows  through  the  arteries  than  can  be  carried  back  into 
the  veins :  hence  too  much  blood  finds  its  way  from  the 
aorta  into  the  head  and  stomach,  and  the  blood  vessels 
of  the  head  become  pressed  and  swollen.  The  general 
obstruction  of  circulation  v/hich  ensues  causes  an  in- 
tense excitement,  exertion,  and  anxiety  more  intoler- 
able than  death  itself. 

"  (5)  The  inexpressible  misery  of  gradually  increas- 
ing and  lingering  anguish. 

"  (6)    Burning  and  raging  thirst. 

"  Death  by  crucifixion  (physically  considered)  is, 
therefore,  to  be  attributed  to  the  sympathetic  fever 
which  is  excited  by  the  wounds,  and  aggravated  by 
exposure  to  the  weather,  privation  of  water,  and  the 
painfully  constrained  position  of  the  body.  Traumatic 
fever  corresponds,  in  intensity  and  in  character,  to  the 
local  inflammation  of  the  wound,  is  characterized  by 
heat,  swelling,  and  great  pain,  the  fever  is  highly  in- 
flammatory, and  the  sufferer  complains  of  heat,  throb- 
ing  headache,  intense  thirst,  restlessness,  and  anxiety. 
As  soon  as  suppuration  sets  in,  the  fever  somewhat 
abates,  and  partially  ceases  as  suppuration  diminishes 
and  the  stage  of  cicatrization  approaches.  But  if  the 
wound  be  prevented  from  healing  and  suppuration 
continues,  the  fever  assumes  a  hectic  character,  and 
will  sooner  or  later  exhaust  the  powers  of  life.  When, 
however,  the  inflammation  of  the  wound  is  so  intense 
as  to  produce  mortification,  nervous  depression  is  the 
immediate  consequence;  and,  if  the  cause  of  this  ex- 
cessive inflammation  of  the  wound  still  continues,  as  is 


6o  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

the  case  in  crucifixion,  the  sufferer  rapidly  sinks.  He 
is  no  longer  sensible  of  pain,  but  his  anxiety  and  sense 
of  prostration  are  excessive;  hiccough  supervenes,  his 
skin  is  moistened  with  a  cold  clammy  sweat,  and  death 
ensues.  It  is  in  this  manner  that  death  on  the  cross 
must  have  taken  place  in  an  ordinarily  healthy  consti- 
tution." 

The  intense  sufferings  and  prolonged  agony  of  cru- 
cifixion can  be  best  illustrated  by  an  account  of  several 
cases  of  this  form  of  punishment  taken  from  history. 

From  the  "  Chrestomathia  Arabica  "  of  Kosegarten, 
published  in  1828,  is  taken  the  following  story  of  the 
execution  of  a  Mameluke.  The  author  of  this  work 
gleaned  the  story  from  an  Arabic  manuscript  entitled 
"  The  Meadow  of  Flowers  and  the  Fragrant  Odour": 

*'  It  is  said  that  he  had  killed  his  master  for  some 
cause  or  other,  and  he  was  crucified  on  the  banks  of 
the  river  Barada  under  the  castle  of  Damascus,  with 
his  face  turned  toward  the  East.  His  hands,  arms,  and 
feet  were  nailed,  and  he  remained  so  from  midday  on 
Friday  to  the  same  hour  on  Sunday,  when  he  died. 
He  was  remarkable  for  his  strength  and  prowess;  he 
had  been  engaged  with  his  master  in  sacred  war  at 
Askelon,  where  he  slew  great  numbers  of  the  Franks; 
and  when  very  young  he  had  killed  a  lion.  Several 
extraordinary  things  occurred  at  his  being  nailed,  as 
that  he  gave  himself  up  without  resistance  to  the  cross, 
and  without  complaint  stretched  out  his  hands,  which 
were  nailed  and  after  them  his  feet:  he  in  the  mean- 
time looked  on,  and  did  not  utter  a  groan,  or  change 
his  countenance  or  move  his  limbs.  ^  I  have  heard  this 


ROMAN    FORMS    OF    PUNISHMENT        6i 

from  one  who  witnessed  it,  and  he  thus  remained  till 
he  died,  patient  and  silent,  without  wailing,  but  look- 
ing around  him  to  the  right  and  the  left  upon  the  peo- 
ple. But  he  begged  for  water,  and  none  was  given 
him,  and  he  gazed  upon  it  and  longed  for  one  drop  of 
it,  and  he  complained  of  thirst  all  the  first  day,  after 
which  he  was  silent,  for  God  gave  him  strength." 

Describing  the  punishments  used  in  Madasgascar, 
Rev.  Mr.  Ellis  says :  "  In  a  few  cases  of  great  enormity, 
a  sort  of  crucifixion  has  been  resorted  to;  and,  in  addi- 
tion to  this,  burning  or  roasting  at  a  slow  fire,  kept  at 
some  distance  from  the  sufferer,  has  completed  the  hor- 
rors of  this  miserable  death.  ...  In  the  year  1825,  a 
man  was  condemned  to  crucifixion,  who  had  murdered 
a  female  for  the  sake  of  stealing  her  child.  He  carried 
the  child  for  sale  to  the  public  market,  where  the  in- 
fant was  recognized,  and  the  murderer  detected.  He 
bore  his  punishment  in  the  most  hardened  manner, 
avenging  himself  by  all  the  violence  he  was  capable  of 
exercising  upon  those  who  dragged  him  to  the  place  of 
execution.  Not  a  single  groan  escaped  him  during  the 
period  he  was  nailed  to  the  wood,  nor  while  the  cross 
was  fixed  upright  in  the  earth."  ^ 

More  horrible  still  than  punishment  by  crucifixion 
was  that  of  impalement  and  suspension  on  a  hook. 
The  following  description  of  the  execution,  in  1830, 
at  Salonica,  of  Chaban,  a  captain  of  banditti,  is  given 
by  Blade :  "  He  was  described  by  those  who  saw  him  as 
a  very  fine-looking  man,  about  thirty-five.  As  a  pre- 
paratory exercise,  he  was  suspended  by  his  arms  for 

1  "History  of  Madagascar,"  vol.  i.  pp.  371,  372. 


62  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

twelve  hours.  The  following  day  a  hook  was  thrust 
into  his  side,  by  which  he  was  suspended  to  a  tree,  and 
there  hung  enduring  the  agony  of  thirst  till  the  third 
evening,  when  death  closed  the  scene;  but  before  that 
about  an  hour  the  birds,  already  considering  him  their 
own,  had  alighted  upon  his  brow  to  pick  his  eyes. 
During  this  frightful  period  he  uttered  no  unmanly 
complaints,  only  repeated  several  times,  *Had  I  known 
that  I  was  to  sufifer  this  infernal  death,  I  would  never 
have  done  what  I  have.  From  the  moment  I  led  the 
klephte's  life  I  had  death  before  my  eyes,  and  was  pre- 
pared to  meet  it,  but  I  expected  to  die  as  my  predeces- 
sors, by  decapitation."  ^ 

The  Cross. — The  instrument  of  crucifixion,  called 
the  Cross,  was  variously  formed.  Lipsius  and  Gretser 
have  employed  a  twofold  classification:  the  crux  sim- 
plex, and  the  crux  composita  or  compacta.  A  single 
upright  stake  was  distinguished  as  a  crux  simplex. 
The  crux  composita,  the  compound  or  actual  cross, 
was  subject  to  the  following  modifications  of  form: 
Crux  immissa,  formed  as  in  the  figure  "f";  crux  com- 
niissa  thus  formed  T  ;  and  the  crux  decussata,  the 
cruciform  figure,  set  diagonally  after  the  manner  of 
the  Roman  letter  X.  It  is  generally  thought  that  Jesus 
was  crucified  upon  the  crux  immissa,  the  "  Latin 
cross." 

According  to  the  well-known  legend  of  the  "  Inven- 
tion of  the  Cross,"  the  actual  cross  on  which  Jesus  was 
crucified  was  discovered  in  the  year  326  A.D.  by  the 
Empress  Helena,  the  mother  of  Constantine  the  Great. 

^  "Records  of  Travel  in  Turkey  and  Greece,"  vol.  i.  p.  447. 


ROMAN    FORMS    OF    PUNISHMENT        Si, 

As  the  story  goes,  while  visiting  Jerusalem  and  the 
scenes  of  the  passion,  she  was  guided  to  the  summit  of 
Calvary  by  an  aged  Jew.  Here  an  excavation  was 
made,  and,  at  a  considerable  depth,  three  crosses  were 
found;  and,  with  them,  but  lying  aside  by  itself,  was 
the  inscription,  in  Hebrew,  Latin,  and  Greek,  placed 
above  the  head  of  Christ  at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion. 
To  determine  which  of  the  three  crosses  was  the  one 
upon  which  Jesus  suffered,  it  was  decided,  at  the  sug- 
gestion of  Macarius,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  to  employ 
a  miracle.  The  sick  were  brought  and  required  to 
touch  the  three.  According  to  the  legend,  the  one 
upon  which  the  Savior  died  immediately  imparted 
miraculous  healing.  A  church  was  at  once  built  above 
the  excavation  and  in  it  was  deposited  the  greater  part 
of  the  supposed  real  cross,  and  the  remainder  was  sent 
to  Byzantium,  and  from  there  to  Rome,  where  it  was 
placed  in  the  church  of  Santa  Croce  in  Gerusalemme, 
built  especially  to  receive  the  precious  relic.  The 
genuineness  of  this  relic  was  afterwards  attested  by  a 
Bull  of  Pope  Alexander  HI. 

In  connection  with  the  legend  of  the  discovery  of 
the  actual  cross  upon  which  Christ  was  crucified,  goes 
a  secondary  story  that  the  nails  used  at  the  crucifixion 
were  also  found  at  the  same  time  and  place.  Later 
tradition  declared  that  one  of  these  was  thrown  by 
Helena  into  the  Adriatic  when  swept  by  a  terrific 
storm,  and  that  this  was  followed  by  an  instantaneous 
calm. 

The  popular  impression  among  Christians  that  the 
cross  is  exclusively  a  Christian  religious  symbol,  seems 


64  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

to  be  without  historical  foundation.  It  is  quite  certain, 
indeed,  that  it  was  a  religious  emblem  among  several 
ancient  races  before  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era. 

The  ancient  Egyptians  adored  the  cross  with  the 
most  holy  veneration;  and  this  sacred  emblem  was 
carved  upon  many  of  their  monuments.  Several  of 
these  monuments  may  be  seen  to-day  in  the  British 
Museum.^  A  cross  upon  a  Calvary  may  also  be  seen 
upon  the  breast  of  one  of  the  Egyptian  mummies  in 
the  Museum  of  the  London  University.^  The  ancient 
Egyptians  were  accustomed  to  putting  a  cross  on  their 
sacred  cakes,  just  as  the  Christians  of  to-day  do,  on 
Good  Friday.^ 

The  cross  was  also  adored  by  the  ancient  Greeks  and 
Romans,  long  before  the  crucifixion  of  Christ.  Greek 
crosses  of  equal  arms  adorn  the  tomb  of  Midas,  the 
ancient  Phrygian  king.^  One  of  the  early  Christian 
Fathers,  Minucius  Felix,  in  a  heated  controversy  with 
the  pagan  Romans,  charged  them  with  adoration  of 
the  cross.  "  As  for  adoration  of  the  cross,"  said  he  to 
the  Romans,  "  which  you  object  against  us,  I  must  tell 
you  that  we  neither  adore  crosses  nor  desire  them. 
You  it  is,  ye  Pagans,  who  worship  wooden  gods,  who 
are  the  most  likely  people  to  adore  wooden  crosses,  as 
being  part  of  the  same  substance  with  your  deities. 
For  what  else  are  your  ensigns,  flags,  and  standards, 
but  crosses,  gilt  and  beautiful?    Your  victorious  tro- 

^  "The  Celtic  Druids,"  p.  126;  "Anacalypsis,"  vol.  i.  p.  317. 

2  "Anacalypsis,"  vol.  1.  p.  217. 

3  Colenso's  "Pentateuch  Examined,"  vol.  vi.  p.  1 15. 
■*  Baring-Gould,  "Curious  Myths,"  p.  291. 


ROMAN    FORMS    OF    PUNISHMENT        Ss 

phies  not  only  represent  a  cross,  but  a  cross  with  a  man 
upon  ity  ^ 

It  also  seems  that,  at  a  time  antedating  the  early  Ro- 
mans, Etruscans  and  Sabines,  a  primitive  race  inhab- 
ited the  plains  of  Northern  Italy,  "  to  whom  the  cross 
was  a  religious  symbol,  the  sign  beneath  which  they 
laid  their  dead  to  rest;  a  people  of  whom  history  tells 
nothing,  knowing  not  their  name;  but  of  whom  anti- 
quarian research  has  learned  this,  that  they  lived  in 
ignorance  of  the  arts  of  civilization,  that  they  dwelt  in 
villages  built  on  platforms  over  lakes,  and  that  they 
trusted  to  the  cross  to  guard,  and  maybe  to  revive,  their 
loved  ones  whom  they  committed  to  the  dust." 

The  cross  was  also  a  sacred  symbol  among  the  an- 
cient Scandinavians.  "  It  occurs,"  says  Mr.  R.  P. 
Knight,  "  on  many  Runic  monuments  found  in  Sweden 
and  Denmark,  which  are  of  an  age  long  anterior  to  the 
approach  of  Christianity  to  those  countries,  and,  prob- 
ably, to  its  appearance  in  the  world."  ^ 

When  the  Spanish  missionaries  first  set  foot  on  the 
soil  of  Mexico,  they  were  amazed  to  find  that  the  Az- 
tecs worshiped  the  cross  as  an  object  of  supreme  ven- 
eration. They  found  it  suspended  as  a  sacred  symbol 
and  an  august  emblem  from  the  walls  of  all  the  Aztec 
temples.^  When  they  penetrated  farther  south  and 
entered  Peru,  they  found  that  the  Incas  adored  a  cross 
made  out  of  a  single  piece  of  jasper/  "  It  appears," 
says  "  Chambers's  Encyclopedia,"  "  that  the  sign  of  the 

1  "Octavius,"  Chap.  XXIX.         ^  "Ancient  Art  and  Mythology,"  p.  30. 
3  Brinton,  "The  Myths  of  the  New  World,"  p.  95. 
"*  Baring-Gould,  "Curious  Myths,"  p.  299. 


66  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

cross  was  in  use  as  an  emblem  having  certain  religious 
and  mystic  meanings  attached  to  it,  long  before  the 
Christian  era;  and  the  Spanish  conquerors  were  aston- 
ished to  find  it  an  object  of  religious  veneration  among 
the  nations  of  Central  and  South  America."  ^ 

That  the  ancient  Mexicans  should  have  worshiped 
the  cross  and  also  a  crucified  Savior,  called  Quetzal- 
coatle,^  is  one  of  the  strangest  phenomena  of  sacred 
history.  It  is  a  puzzle  which  the  most  eminent  theo- 
logians have  found  it  impossible  to  solve.  They  have 
generally  contented  themselves  with  declaring  the 
whole  thing  a  myth  built  upon  primitive  superstition 
and  ignorance.  This  worship  of  the  cross  and  Quet- 
zalcoatle  was  going  on  before  Columbus  discovered 
America,  and  it  seems  impossible  to  establish  any  his- 
torical or  geographical  connection  between  it  and  the 
Christian  worship  of  the  cross  and  the  crucified  Jesus. 

Several  writers  of  eminence  have  contended  that  the 
widespread  adoration  of  the  cross,  as  a  sacred  symbol, 
among  so  many  races  of  mankind,  ancient  and  modern, 
proves  a  universal  spiritual  impulse,  culminating  in 
the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  as  the  common  Savior  of  the 
world.  "  It  is  more  than  a  coincidence,"  says  the  Rev. 
S.  Baring-Gould,  "  that  Osiris  by  the  cross  should  give 
life  eternal  to  the  spirits  of  the  just;  that  with  the  cross 
Thor  should  smite  the  head  of  the  great  Serpent,  and 
bring  to  life  those  who  were  slain;  that  beneath  the 
cross  the  Muysca  mothers  should  lay  their  babes,  trust- 
ing to  that  sign  to  secure  them  from  the  power  of  evil 

iVol.iii.  Art.,  "Cross." 

2  Kingsborough,  "Mexican  Antiquities,"  vol.  vi.  i66.  p. 


ROMAN    FORMS    OF    PUNISHMENT        67 

spirits;  that  with  that  symbol  to  protect  them,  the  an- 
cient people  of  Northern  Italy  should  lay  them  down 
in  the  dust."  ^ 

But  it  is  not  with  the  mythical  crucifixions  of  mythi- 
cal gods  that  we  have  to  deal.  The  real,  historical 
death  of  Jesus  upon  the  cross  with  its  accompanying 
incidents  of  outrageous  illegality  is  the  purpose  of  this 
treatise;  and  to  the  accomplishment  of  that  design  we 
now  return. 

1  "Curious  Myths,"  p.  311. 


CHAPTER   VI 


ROMAN  LAW  APPLICABLE  TO  THE  TRIAL  OF  JESUS 


HAT  was  the  law  of  Rome  in 
relation  to  the  trial  of  Jesus? 
The  answer  to  this  question  is 
referable  to  the  main  charge 
brought  against  the  Master  be- 
fore Pilate.  A  single  verse  in 
St.  Luke  contains  the  indict- 
ment: "And  they  began  to  ac- 
cuse him,  saying,  We  found  this 
fellow  perverting  the  nation,  and  forbidding  to  give 
tribute  to  Caesar,  saying  that  he  himself  is  Christ  a 
King."  Three  distinct  elements  are  wrapped  up  in 
this  general  accusation;  but  they  are  all  interwoven 
with  and  culminate  in  the  great  charge  that  Jesus 
claimed  to  be  "  Christ  a  King."  Of  this  accusation 
alone,  Pilate  took  cognizance.  And  there  is  no  mistake 
as  to  its  nature  and  meaning.  It  was  High  Treason 
against  Caesar — the  most  awful  crime  known  to  Roman 
law.  This  was  the  charge  brought  by  the  priests  of 
the  Sanhedrin  against  the  Nazarene.  What  then  was 
the  law  of  Rome  in  relation  to  the  crime  of  high  trea- 
son? The  older  Roman  law,  crimen  perJuellionis, 
applied  chiefly  to  offenses  committed  in  the  military 
service.     Deserters  from  the  army  were  regarded  as 

68 


TIBERIUS    VJESAK     (ANTIQUE    SCULPTURE) 


RELEVANT    ROMAN    LAW  69 

traitors  and  punished  as  public  enemies  either  by  death 
or  interdiction  of  fire  and  water.  Later  Roman  law 
broadened  the  definition  of  treason  until  it  compre- 
hended any  offense  against  the  Roman  Commonwealth 
that  affected  the  dignity  and  security  of  the  Roman 
people.  Ulpian,  defining  treason,  says:  ^^  Majestatis 
crimen  illud  est  quod  adversus  populum  Romanum 
vel  adversus  securitatem  ejus  committitur.^^  ^  Cicero 
very  admirably  describes  the  same  crime  as:  ^^  Majes- 
tatem  minuere  est  de  dignitate  aut  amplitudine  aut 
potestate  populi  aut  eorum  quibus  populus  potestatem 
dedit  aliquid  derogarey  "  The  substance  of  both  these 
definitions  is  this:  Treason  is  an  insult  to  the  dignity 
or  an  attack  upon  the  sovereignty  and  security  of  the 
Roman  State.  From  time  to  time,  various  laws  were 
passed  to  define  this  crime  and  to  provide  penalties  for 
its  commission.  Chief  among  these  were  the  lex  Julia 
Majestatis,  48  B.C.  Other  laws  of  an  earlier  date  were 
the  lex  Cornelia^  81  B.C.;  lex  Faria,  92  B.C.;  and  the 
lex  Appuleia,  100  B.C.  The  lex  Julia  was  in  existence 
at  the  time  of  Christ,  and  was  the  basis  of  the  Roman 
law  of  treason  until  the  closing  years  of  the  empire. 
One  of  its  provisions  was  that  every  accusation  of  trea- 
son against  a  Roman  citizen  should  be  made  by  a  writ- 
ten libel.  But  it  is  not  probable  that  provincials  were 
entitled  to  the  benefit  of  this  provision ;  and  it  was 
not  therefore  an  infraction  of  the  law  that  the  priests 
and  Pilate  failed  to  present  a  written  charge  against 
Jesus. 

In  studying  the  trial  of  Jesus  and  the  charge  brought 

1  "Digest,"  XLVIII.  4.  2  "De  Inventione,"  II.  17. 


70  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESLS 

against  Him,  the  reader  should  constantly  remind  him- 
self that  the  crucifixion  took  place  during  the  reign  of 
Tiberius  Caesar,  a  morbid  and  capricious  tyrant,  whose 
fretful  and  suspicious  temper  would  kindle  into  fire  at 
the  slightest  suggestion  of  treason  in  any  quarter. 
Tacitus  records  fifty-two  cases  of  prosecution  for  trea- 
son during  his  reign.  The  enormous  development  of 
the  law  of  majestas  at  this  time  gave  rise  to  a  class  of 
professional  informers,  delatores^  whose  infamous  ac- 
tivity against  private  citizens  helped  to  blacken  the 
name  of  Tiberius.  The  most  harmless  acts  were  at 
times  construed  into  an  aflfront  to  the  majesty  or  into 
an  assault  upon  the  safety  of  this  miserable  despot. 
Cotta  Messalinus  was  prosecuted  for  treason  because  it 
was  alleged  "  that  he  had  given  Caligula  the  nickname 
of  Caia,  as  contaminated  by  incest";  and  again  on  an- 
other charge  that  he  had  styled  a  banquet  among  the 
priests  on  the  birthday  of  Augusta,  a  "  funeral  sup- 
per"; and  again  on  another  charge  that,  while  com- 
plaining of  the  influence  of  Manius  Lepidus  and 
Lucius  Arruntius,  with  whom  he  had  had  trouble  in 
court,  he  had  said  that  "  they  indeed  will  be  supported 
by  the  senate,  but  I  by  my  little  Tiberius."  ^ 

Manercus  Scaurus  was  prosecuted  for  treason  be- 
cause he  wrote  a  tragedy  in  which  were  certain  lines 
that  might  be  made  to  apply  in  an  uncomplimentary 
manner  to  Tiberius.  We  are  told  by  Dio  that  this 
tragedy  was  founded  on  the  story  of  Atreus;  and  that 
Tiberius,  believing  himself  referred  to,  said,  '*  Since 
he  makes  me  another  Atreus,   I  will   make  him  an 

^Tacitus,  "Annals,"  p.  215. 


RELEVANT    ROMAN    LAW  71 

Ajax,"  meaning  that  he  would  compel  him  to  destroy 
himself.^ 

"  Nor,"  says  Tacitus,  "  were  even  women  exempt 
from  danger.  With  designs  to  usurp  the  government 
they  could  not  be  charged;  their  tears  are  therefore 
made  treason;  and  Vitia,  mother  to  Fusius  Geminus, 
once  consul,  was  executed  in  her  old  age  for  bewailing 
the  death  of  her  son."  ^ 

An  anecdote  taken  from  Seneca  but  related  in  Taci- 
tus, illustrates  the  pernicious  activity  of  the  political 
informers  of  this  age.  At  a  banquet  in  Rome,  one  of 
the  guests  wore  the  image  of  Tiberius  on  his  ring. 
His  slave,  seeing  his  master  intoxicated,  took  the  ring 
off  his  finger.  An  informer  noticed  the  act,  and,  later 
in  the  evening,  insisted  that  the  owner,  to  show  his  con- 
tempt of  Tiberius,  was  sitting  upon  the  figure  of  the 
emperor.  Whereupon  he  began  to  draw  up  an  accusa- 
tion for  high  treason  and  was  getting  ready  to  have  it 
attested  by  subscribing  witnesses,  when  the  slave  took 
the  ring  from  his  own  pocket,  and  thus  demonstrated 
to  the  whole  company  that  he  had  had  It  in  his  posses- 
sion all  the  time.  These  instances  fully  serve  to  illus- 
trate the  political  tone  and  temper  of  the  age  that 
witnessed  the  trial  and  crucifixion  of  Jesus.  They  also 
suggest  the  exceedingly  delicate  and  painful  position 
of  Pilate  when  sitting  in  judgment  upon  the  life  of  a 
subject  of  Tiberius  who  claimed  to  be  a  king. 

It  is  deemed  entirely  appropriate,  in  this  place,  to 
discuss  a  peculiar  phase  of  the  law  of  treason  In  its  re- 
lationship to  the  trial  of  Jesus.     It  is  easily  demon- 

1  Dio,  Lib.  LVIII.  2  "Annals,"  B.  VI.  Chap.  II. 


72  THE   TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

strable  that  the  teachings  of  Christ  were  treasonable 
under  Roman  public  law.  An  essential  and  dominat- 
ing principle  of  that  law  was  that  the  imperial  State 
had  the  right  to  regulate  and  control  the  private  con- 
sciences of  men  in  religious  matters.  It  was  held  to 
be  an  attribute  of  the  sovereignty  of  Rome  that  she  had 
the  right  to  create  or  destroy  religions.  And  the  the- 
ory of  the  Roman  constitution  was  that  the  exercise  of 
this  right  was  not  a  religious  but  a  governmental  func- 
tion. The  modern  doctrine  of  the  separation  of 
Church  and  State  had  no  place  in  Roman  politics  at 
the  time  of  Christ.  Tiberius  Caesar,  at  the  beginning 
of  his  reign,  definitely  adopted  the  principle  of  a  state 
religion,  and  as  Pontifex  Maximus,  was  bound  to  pro- 
tect the  ancient  Roman  worship  as  a  matter  of  official 
duty. 

Roman  treatment  of  foreign  religions,  from  first  to 
last,  is  a  most  interesting  and  fascinating  study.  Poly- 
theistic above  all  other  nations,  the  general  policy  of 
the  Roman  empire  was  one  of  toleration.  Indeed  she 
not  only  tolerated  but  adopted  and  absorbed  foreign 
worships  into  her  own.  The  Roman  religion  was  a 
composite  of  nearly  all  the  religions  of  the  earth.  It 
was  thus  natural  that  the  imperial  State  should  be  in- 
dulgent in  religious  matters,  since  warfare  upon  for- 
eign faiths  would  have  been  an  assault  upon  integral 
parts  of  her  own  sacred  system.  It  is  historically  true 
that  attempts  were  made  from  time  to  time  by  patriotic 
Romans  to  preserve  the  old  Latin  faith  in  its  original 
purity  from  foreign  invasion.  The  introduction  of 
Greek  gods  was  at  first  vigorously  opposed,  but  the 


RELEVANT    ROMAN    LAW  73 

exquisite  beauty  of  Greek  sculpture,  the  irresistible  in- 
fluence of  Greek  literature,  and  the  overwhelming 
fascination  of  Greek  myths,  finally  destroyed  this 
opposition,  and  placed  Apollo  and  iEsculapius  in  the 
Roman  pantheon  beside  Jupiter  and  Minerva. 

At  another  time  the  senate  declared  war  on  the 
Egyptian  worship  which  was  gradually  making  its 
way  into  Rome.  It  had  the  images  of  Isis  and  Serapis 
thrown  down;  but  the  people  set  them  up  again.  It 
decreed  that  the  temples  to  these  deities  should  be  de- 
stroyed, but  not  a  single  workman  would  lay  hands 
upon  them,  i^milius  Paulus,  the  consul,  was  himself 
forced  to  seize  an  ax  and  break  in  the  doors  of  the 
temple.  In  spite  of  this,  the  worship  of  Isis  and  Sera- 
pis  was  soon  again  practiced  unrestrained  at  Rome.^ 

It  is  further  true  that  Rome  showed  not  only  intol- 
erance but  mortal  antagonism  to  Druidism,  which  was 
completely  annihilated  during  the  reign  of  the  Em- 
peror Claudius. 

A  decree  of  the  Roman  senate,  during  the  reign  of 
Tiberius,  ordered  four  thousand  freemen  charged  with 
Egyptian  and  Jewish  superstitions  out  to  Sardinia  to 
fight  against  and  be  destroyed  by  the  banditti  there, 
unless  they  saw  fit  to  renounce  these  superstitions 
within  a  given  time.- 

But  it  must  be  remembered  that  these  are  excep- 
tional cases  of  intolerance  revealed  by  Roman  history. 
The  general  policy  of  the  empire,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  of  extreme  tolerance  and  liberality.    The  keynote 

^  DolHnger,  "The  Gentile  and  the  Jew,"  vol.  ii.  p.  ^2' 
2  DolHnger,  "The  Gentile  and  the  Jew,"  vol.  ii.  p.  172. 


74  THE   TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

of  this  policy  was  that  all  religions  would  be  tolerated 
that  consented  to  live  side  by  side  and  in  peace  with  all 
other  religions.  There  was  but  one  restriction  upon 
and  limitation  of  this  principle,  that  foreign  religions 
would  be  tolerated  only  in  their  local  seats,  or,  at  most, 
among  the  races  in  which  such  religions  were  native. 
The  fact  that  the  worship  of  Serapis  was  left  undis- 
turbed on  the  banks  of  the  Nile,  did  not  mean  that  the 
same  worship  would  be  tolerated  on  the  banks  of  the 
Tiber.  An  express  authorization  by  Rome  was  neces- 
sary for  this  purpose.  Said  authorization  made  said 
worship  a  religio  licita.  And  the  peregrini,  or  for- 
eigners in  Rome,  were  thus  permitted  to  erect  their 
own  altars,  and  to  assemble  for  the  purpose  of  worship- 
ing their  own  gods  which  they  had  brought  with  them. 
The  reverse  side  of  this  general  principle  of  religious 
tolerance  shows  that  Roman  citizens  were  not  only 
permitted  but  required  to  carry  the  Roman  faith  with 
them  throughout  the  world.  Upon  them,  the  Roman 
state  religion  was  absolutely  binding;  and  for  all  the 
balance  of  the  world  it  was  the  dominant  cult.  "  The 
provinces,"  says  Renan,  "  were  entirely  free  to  adhere 
to  their  own  rights,  on  the  sole  condition  of  not  inter- 
fering with  those  of  others."  "  Such  toleration  or  in- 
difference, however,"  says  Dollinger,  "  found  its  own 
limits  at  once  whenever  the  doctrine  taught  had  a  prac- 
tical bearing  on  society,  interfered  with  the  worship 
of  the  state  gods,  or  confronted  their  worship  with  one 
of  its  own;  as  well  as  when  a  strange  god  and  cultus 
assumed  a  hostile  attitude  toward  Roman  gods,  could 
be  brought  into  no  affinity  or  corporate  relation  with 


RELEVANT    ROMAN    LAW  75 

them,  and  would  not  bend  to  the  supremacy  of  Jupiter 
Capitolinus." 

Now,  the  principles  declared  by  Renan  and  DoUin- 
ger  are  fundamental  and  pointed  in  the  matter  of  the 
relationship  between  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  the 
theory  of  treason  under  Roman  law.  These  principles 
were  essential  elements  of  Roman  public  law,  and  an 
attempt  to  destroy  them  was  an  act  of  treason  under  the 
definitions  of  both  Ulpian  and  Cicero.  The  Roman 
constitution  required  that  a  foreign  religion,  as  a  con- 
dition of  its  very  existence,  should  live  in  peace  with 
its  neighbors ;  that  it  should  not  make  war  upon  or  seek 
to  destroy  other  religions;  and  that  it  should  acknowl- 
edge the  dominance  and  superior  character  of  the 
imperial  religion.  All  these  things  Jesus  refused  to  do, 
as  did  his  followers  after  Him.  The  Jews,  it  is  true, 
had  done  the  same  thing,  but  their  nationality  and  lack 
of  aggressiveness  saved  them  until  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  But  Christianity  was  essentially  aggressive 
and  proselytizing.  It  sought  to  supplant  and  destroy 
all  other  religions.  No  compromises  were  proposed, 
no  treaties  concluded.  The  followers  of  the  Nazarene 
raised  a  black  flag  against  paganism  and  every  heathen 
god.  Their  strange  faith  not  only  defied  all  other  re- 
ligions, but  mocked  all  earthly  government  not  built 
upon  it.  Their  propaganda  was  nothing  less  than  a 
challenge  to  the  Roman  empire  in  the  affairs  of  both 
law  and  religion.  Here  was  a  faith  which  claimed  to 
be  the  only  true  religion;  that  proclaimed  a  monothe- 
istic message  which  was  death  to  polytheism ;  and  that 
refused  to  be  confined  within  local  limits.     Here  was 


76  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

a  religion  that  scorned  an  authorization  from  Rome  to 
worship  its  god  and  prophet;  a  religion  that  demanded 
acceptance  and  obedience  from  all  the  world — from 
Roman  and  Greek,  as  well  as  Jew  and  Egyptian.  This 
scorn  and  this  demand  were  an  affront  to  the  dignity 
and  a  challenge  to  the  laws  of  the  Roman  Common- 
wealth. Such  conduct  was  treason  against  the  consti- 
tution of  the  empire. 

"  The  substance  of  what  the  Romans  did,"  says  Sir 
James  Fitz-James  Stephen,  "  was  to  treat  Christianity 
by  fits  and  starts  as  a  crime."  ^  But  why  a  crime?  Be- 
cause the  Roman  religion,  built  upon  polytheism,  was 
an  integral  and  inseparable  part  of  the  Roman  State, 
and  whatever  menaced  the  life  of  the  one,  threatened 
the  existence  of  the  other.  The  Romans  regarded  their 
religion  as  "  an  engine  of  state  which  could  not  be 
shaken  without  the  utmost  danger  to  their  civil  gov- 
ernment." Cicero  further  says:  "The  institutions  of 
the  fathers  must  be  defended;  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom 
to  hold  fast  the  sacred  rites  and  ceremonies."  "  Roman 
statesmen  were  fully  aware  of  the  truthfulness  of  the 
statement  of  a  modern  writer  that,  "  wherever  the  re- 
ligion of  any  state  falls  into  disregard  and  contempt 
it  is  impossible  for  that  state  to  subsist  long."  Now, 
Christianity  was  monotheistic,  and  threatened  destruc- 
tion to  polytheism  everywhere.  And  the  Romans 
treated  it  as  a  crime  because  it  was  regarded  as  a  form 
of  seditious  atheism  whose  teachings  and  principles 
were  destructive  of  the  established  order  of  things. 
The  Roman  conception  of  the  nature  of  the  crime  com- 

"^  1  "Liberty,  Equality,  Fraternity,"  pp.  89,  90.  ^  Dg  Legibus. 


RELEVANT    ROMAN    LAW  77 

mitted  by  an  attack  upon  the  national  religion  is  well 
illustrated  by  the  following  sentence  from  Dollinger: 
"  If  an  opinion  unfavorable  to  the  apotheosis  of  any 
member  of  the  imperial  dynasty  happened  to  be 
dropped,  it  was  dangerous  in  itself  as  falling  within 
the  purview  of  the  law  of  high  treason;  and  so  it  fell 
out  in  the  case  of  Thrasea  Paetus,  who  refused  to  be- 
lieve in  the  deification  of  Poppaea."  If  it  was  high 
treason  to  refuse  to  believe  in  the  deification  of  an  em- 
peror or  an  empress,  what  other  crime  could  be  im- 
puted to  him  whose  design  was  to  destroy  an  entire 
religious  system,  and  to  pile  all  the  gods  and  goddesses 
— Juno  and  Poppaea,  Jupiter  and  Augustus — in  com- 
mon ruin? 

From  the  foregoing,  it  may  be  readily  seen  that  it  is 
impossible  to  appreciate  the  legal  aspects  of  the  trial 
of  Jesus  before  Pilate,  unless  it  is  constantly  kept  in 
mind  that  the  Roman  constitution,  which  was  binding 
upon  the  whole  empire,  reserved  to  the  state  the  right 
to  permit  or  forbid  the  existence  of  new  religious 
faiths  and  the  exercise  of  rights  of  conscience  in  reli- 
gious matters.  Rome  was  perfectly  willing  to  tolerate 
all  religions  as  long  as  they  were  peaceful  and  passive 
in  their  relations  with  other  religions.  But  when  a 
new  and  aggressive  faith  appeared  upon  the  scene, 
proclaiming  the  strange  dogma  that  there  was  but  one 
name  under  heaven  whereby  men  might  be  saved,  and 
demanding  that  every  knee  bow  at  the  mention  of  that 
name,  and  threatening  damnation  upon  all  who  re- 
fused, the  majesty  of  Roman  law  felt  itself  insulted  and 
outraged ;  and  persecution,  torture,  and  death  were  the 


78  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

inevitable  result.  The  best'  and  wisest  of  the  Roman 
emperors,  Trajan  and  the  Antonines,  devoted  to  the 
ax  or  condemned  to  crucifixion  the  early  Christians, 
not  because  Christianity  was  spiritually  false,  but 
because  it  was  aggressive  and  intolerant,  and  they  be- 
lieved its  destruction  necessary  to  the  maintenance  of 
the  supremacy  and  sovereignty  of  the  Roman  State. 

An  interesting  correspondence  between  Pliny  and 
Trajan,  while  the  former  was  governor  of  Bithynia, 
reveals  the  Roman  conception  of  and  attitude  toward 
Christianity.  Pliny  wrote  to  Trajan :  "  In  the  mean- 
while, the  method  I  have  observed  toward  those  who 
have  been  brought  before  me  as  Christians  is  this:  I 
asked  them  whether  they  were  Christians;  if  they  ad- 
mitted it,  I  repeated  the  question  twice,  and  threatened 
them  with  punishment;  if  they  persisted,  I  ordered 
them  to  be  at  once  punished,  for  I  was  persuaded, 
whatever  the  nature  of  their  opinions  might  be,  a  con- 
tumacious and  inflexible  obstinacy  certainly  deserved 
correction.  There  were  others  also  brought  before  me 
possessed  with  the  same  infatuation,  but  being  Roman 
citizens,  I  directed  them  to  be  sent  to  Rome." 

To  this,  Trajan  replied:  "You  have  adopted  the 
right  course,  my  dearest  Secundus,  in  investigating  the 
charges  against  the  Christians  who  were  brought  be- 
fore you.  It  is  not  possible  to  lay  down  any  general 
rule  for  all  such  cases.  Do  not  go  out  of  your  way  to 
look  for  them.  If,  indeed,  they  should  be  brought 
before  you,  and  the  crime  is  proved,  they  must  be  pun- 
ished; with  the  restriction,  however,  that  where  the 
party  denies  he  is  a  Christian,  and  shall  make  it  evident 


RELEVANT    ROMAN    LAW  79 

he  is  not,  by  invoking  our  gods,  let  him  (notwithstand- 
ing any  former  suspicion)  be  pardoned  upon  his  re- 
pentance." ^  Here  the  magnanimous  Trajan  called 
Christianity  a  crime,  and  this  was  the  popular  Roman 
conception  of  it  during  the  first  two  centuries  of  its 
existence. 

Now,  it  is  true  that  Christianity  was  not  on  trial 
before  Pilate;  but  the  Author  of  Christianity  was. 
And  the  same  legal  principles  were  extant  and  appli- 
cable that  afterwards  brought  the  Roman  State  and  the 
followers  of  the  Nazarene  into  mortal  conflict.  For 
the  prisoner  who  now  stood  before  the  procurator  to 
answer  the  charge  of  high  treason  asserted  substan- 
tially the  same  claims  and  proclaimed  the  same  doc- 
trines that  afterwards  caused  Rome  to  devote  His 
adherents  to  flames  and  to  wild  beasts  in  the  amphithea- 
ter. The  record  does  not  disclose  that  Pilate  became 
fully  acquainted  at  the  trial  of  Jesus  with  His  claims 
and  doctrines.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  clear  that  he 
became  convinced  that  the  claim  of  Jesus  to  be  '*  Christ 
a  King  "  was  not  a  pretension  to  earthly  sovereignty. 
But,  nevertheless,  whatever  might  have  been  the  in- 
formation or  the  notions  of  the  deputy  of  Tiberius,  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  were  inconsistent  and  incompatible 
with  the  public  law  of  the  Roman  State.  Pilate  was 
not  necessarily  called  upon  to  enforce  this  law,  since 
it  was  frequently  the  duty  of  Roman  governors,  as  in- 
timated by  Trajan  in  his  letter  to  Pliny,  to  exercise 
leniency  in  dealing  with  religious  delinquents. 

To  summarize,  then :  it  may  be  said  that  the  Roman 

^  Correspondence  between  Pliny  and  Trajan,  Letters  XCVII,  XCVIII. 


8o  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS. 

law  applicable  to  the  trial  of  Jesus  was  the  lex  Julia 
Majestatts,  interpreted  either  in  the  light  of  claims  to 
actual  kingship  made  by  Jesus,  or  to  kingship  of  a 
religious  realm  whose  character  and  existence  were  a 
menace  to  the  religion  and  laws  of  Rome.  In  the  light 
of  the  evidence  adduced  at  the  hearing  before  Pilate, 
these  legal  principles  become  mere  abstract  proposi- 
tions, since  there  seems  to  have  been  neither  necessity 
nor  attempt  to  enforce  them;  but  they  were  in  exist- 
ence, nevertheless,  and  were  directly  applicable  to  the 
trial  of  Jesus. 


PONTIUS    PILATE     (mUNKACSY) 


CHAPTER   VII 


PONTIUS  PILATE 


IS  Name. — The  prasnomen  or 
first  name  of  Pilate  is  not  known. 
Rosadi  calls  him  Lucius,  but 
upon  what  authority  is  not 
stated.  His  nomen  or  family 
name  indicates  that  he  was  con- 
nected either  by  descent  or  by 
adoption  with  the  gens  of  the 
Pontii,  a  tribe  first  made  famous 
in  Roman  history  in  the  person  and  achievements  of  C. 
Pontius  Telesinus,  the  great  Samnite  general.  A  Ger- 
man legend,  however,  offers  another  explanation.  Ac- 
cording to  this  story,  Pilate  was  the  natural  son  of 
Tyrus,  King  of  Mayence.  His  father  sent  him  to  Rome 
as  a  hostage,  and  there  he  was  guilty  of  murder.  After- 
wards he  was  sent  to  Pontus,  where  he  distinguished 
himself  by  subduing  certain  barbarian  tribes.  In  rec- 
ognition of  his  services,  it  is  said,  he  received  the  name 
Pontius.  But  this  account  is  a  pure  fabrication.  It  is 
possible  that  it  was  invented  by  the  22d  legion,  which 
was  assigned  to  Palestine  at  the  time  of  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  and  was  afterwards  stationed  at  May- 
ence. The  soldiers  of  this  legion  might  have  been 
"  either  the  bearers  of  this  tradition  or  the  inventors 
of  the  fable." 

8i 


82  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

It  is  historically  almost  certain  that  Pilate  was  a  na- 
tive of  Seville,  one  of  the  cities  of  Baetic  Spain  that 
enjoyed  rights  of  Roman  citizenship.  In  the  war  of 
annihilation  waged  by  Agrippa  against  the  Canta- 
brians,  the  father  of  Pilate,  Marcus  Pontius,  acquired 
fame  as  a  general  on  the  side  of  Rome.  He  seems  to 
have  been  a  renegade  to  the  cause  of  the  Spaniards,  his 
countrymen.  And  when  Spain  had  been  conquered  by 
Rome,  as  a  reward  for  service,  and  as  a  mark  of  dis- 
tinction, he  received  the  pilum  (javelin),  and  from 
this  fact  his  family  took  the  name  of  Pilati.  This  is 
the  common  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  cognomen 
Pilatus. 

Others  have  sought  to  derive  the  word  Pilate  from 
pileatus,  which,  among  the  Romans,  was  the  cap  worn 
as  a  badge  of  servitude  by  manumitted  slaves.  This 
derivation  would  make  Pontius  Pilate  a  libertus,  or  the 
descendant  of  one. 

Of  his  youth,  very  little  is  known.  But  it  is  believed 
that,  after  leaving  Spain,  he  entered  the  suite  of  Ger- 
manicus  on  the  Rhine  and  served  through  the  German 
campaigns;  and  that,  when  peace  was  concluded,  he 
went  to  Rome  in  search  of  fortune  and  in  pursuit  of 
pleasure. 

His  Marriage. — Soon  after  his  arrival  in  Rome, 
Pilate  was  married  to  Claudia,  the  youngest  daughter 
of  Julia,  the  daughter  of  Augustus.  Julia  was  a 
woman  of  the  most  dissolute  and  reckless  habits.  Ac- 
cording to  Suetonius,  nothing  so  embittered  the  life  of 
the  Roman  emperor  as  the  shameful  conduct  of  the 
mother  of  the  wife  of  the  procurator  of  Judea.     He 


PONTIUS    PILATE  83 

had  reared  her  with  the  utmost  care,  had  accustomed 
her  to  domestic  employments  such  as  knitting  and  spin- 
ning, and  had  sought  to  inculcate  principles  of  purity 
and  nobility  of  soul  by  requiring  her  to  speak  and  act 
openly  before  the  family,  that  everything  which  was 
said  and  done  might  be  put  down  in  a  diary.  His 
guardianship  of  the  attentions  paid  her  by  young  men 
was  so  strict  that  he  once  wrote  a  letter  to  Lucius  Vini- 
cius,  a  handsome  young  man  of  good  family,  in  which 
he  said:  "You  have  not  behaved  very  modestly,  in 
making  a  visit  to  my  daughter  at  Baiae."  Notwith- 
standing this  good  training,  Julia  became  one  of  the 
lewdest  and  coarsest  women  in  Rome.  Augustus  mar- 
ried her  first  to  Marcellus;  then,  after  the  death  of 
Marcellus,  to  Marcus  Agrippa;  and,  finally,  to  Tibe- 
rius. But  in  spite  of  the  noble  matches  that  had  been 
made  for  her,  her  lewdness  and  debaucheries  became 
so  notorious  that  Augustus  was  compelled  to  banish  her 
from  Rome.  It  is  said  that  he  was  so  much  ashamed  of 
her  infamous  conduct  that  for  a  long  time  he  avoided 
all  company,  and  even  had  thoughts  of  putting  her  to 
death.  His  sorrow  and  humiliation  are  shown  from 
the  circumstance  that  when  one  Phoebe,  a  freedwoman 
and  confidante  of  hers,  hanged  herself  about  the  time 
the  decree  of  banishment  was  passed  by  the  senate,  he 
said:  "  I  had  rather  be  the  father  of  Phoebe  than  of 
Julia."  And  whenever  the  name  of  Julia  was  men- 
tioned to  him,  during  her  exile,  Augustus  was  wont  to 
exclaim :  "  Would  I  were  wifeless,  or  had  childless 
died."  ^ 

1  Suet.,  "Caesar  Augustus,"  Chap.  LXIV. 


84  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Such  was  the  character  of  Julia,  mother-in-law  of 
Pilate.  In  exile,  she  bore  Claudia  to  a  Roman  knight. 
In  her  fifteenth  year,  the  young  girl  met  the  Spaniard 
in  Rome  and  was  courted  by  him.  Nothing  better  il- 
lustrates the  character  of  Pilate  than  his  union  with 
this  woman  with  whose  origin  and  bringing  up  he  was 
well  acquainted.  It  was  a  servile  and  lustful  rather 
than  a  noble  and  affectionate  eye  which  he  cast  upon 
her.  Having  won  the  favor  of  Tiberius  and  the  con- 
sent of  Claudia,  the  marriage  was  consummated. 
After  the  nuptial  rites,  tradition  has  it  that  Pilate  de- 
sired to  follow  the  bride  in  the  imperial  litter;  but 
Tiberius,  who  had  acted  as  one  of  the  twelve  witnesses 
required  by  the  law,  forced  him  back,  and  drawing  a 
paper  from  his  bosom,  handed  it  to  him  and  passed  on. 
This  paper  contained  his  commission  as  procurator  of 
Judea;  and  the  real  object  of  the  suit  paid  to  Claudia 
was  attained. 

Pilate  proceeded  at  once  to  Caesarea,  the  headquar- 
ters of  the  government  of  his  province.  His  wife,  who 
had  been  left  behind,  joined  him  afterwards.  Caesar's 
permission  to  do  this  was  a  most  gracious  concession, 
as  it  was  not  generally  allowed  that  governors  of  prov- 
inces should  take  their  wives  with  them.  At  first  it  was 
positively  forbidden.  But  afterwards  a  senatus  con- 
sult, which  is  embodied  in  the  Justinian  text,  declared 
it  better  that  the  wives  of  proconsuls  and  procurators 
should  not  go  with  them,  but  ordaining  that  said  offi- 
cials might  take  their  wives  with  them  provided  they 
made  themselves  personally  responsible  for  any  trans- 
gressions on  their  part.     Notwithstanding  the  numer- 


PONTIUS    PILATE  85 

ous  restrictions  of  Roman  law  and  custom,  it  is  very 
evident  that  the  wives  of  Roman  officers  frequently 
accompanied  them  to  the  provinces.  From  Tacitus  we 
learn  that  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  Augustus,  Ger- 
manicus  had  his  wife  Agrippina  with  him  in  Ger- 
many; and  afterwards,  in  the  beginning  of  the  reign 
of  Tiberius,  she  was  also  with  him  in  the  East.  Piso, 
the  praefect  of  Syria,  took  his  wife  with  him  at  the  same 
time.  These  facts  are  historical  corroborations  of  the 
Gospel  accounts  of  the  presence  of  Claudia  in  Jerusa- 
lem at  the  time  of  the  crucifixion  and  of  her  warning 
dream  to  Pilate  concerning  the  fate  of  the  Master. 

His  Procuratorship. — Pontius  Pilate  was  the  sixth 
procurator  of  Judea.  Sabinus,  Coponius,  Ambivus, 
Rufus,  and  Gratus  had  preceded  him  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  province.  Pilate's  connection  with  the 
trial  and  crucifixion  of  Jesus  will  be  dealt  with  in  suc- 
ceeding chapters  of  this  volume.  Only  the  chief  acts 
of  his  public  administration,  in  a  purely  political  ca- 
pacity, will  be  noticed  here.  One  of  the  first  of  these 
acts  serves  well  to  illustrate  the  reckless  and  tactless 
character  of  the  man.  His  predecessors  in  office  had 
exercised  great  care  in  the  matter  of  the  religious 
prejudices  of  the  Jews.  They  had  studiously  avoided 
exhibiting  flags  and  other  emblems  bearing  images  of 
the  emperor  that  might  ofifend  the  sacred  sentiments 
of  the  native  population.  Even  Vitellius,  the  legate  of 
Syria,  when  he  was  marching  against  the  Arabian  king 
Aretas,  ordered  his  troops  not  to  carry  their  standards 
into  Jewish  territory,  but  to  march  around  it.  Pilate, 
on  the  other  hand,  in  defiance  of  precedent  and  policy. 


86  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

caused  the  garrison  soldiers  of  Jerusalem  to  enter  the 
city  by  night  carrying  aloft  their  standards,  blazoned 
with  the  images  of  Tiberius.  The  news  of  this  outrage 
threw  the  Jews  into  wild  excitement.  The  people  in 
great  numbers  flocked  down  to  Caesarea,  where  Pilate 
was  still  stopping,  and  begged  him  to  remove  the 
standards.  Pilate  refused;  and  for  five  days  the  dis- 
cussion went  on.  At  last  he  became  enraged,  sum- 
moned the  people  into  the  race  course,  had  them  sur- 
rounded by  a  detachment  of  soldiers,  and  served  notice 
upon  them  that  he  would  have  them  put  to  death  if 
they  did  not  become  quiet  and  disperse.  But,  not  in 
the  least  dismayed,  they  threw  themselves  upon  the 
ground,  laid  bare  their  necks,  and,  in  their  turn,  served 
notice  upon  Pilate  that  they,  the  children  of  Abraham, 
would  rather  die,  and  that  they  would  die,  before  they 
would  willingly  see  the  Holy  City  defiled.  The  result 
was  that  Pilate  finally  yielded,  and  had  the  standards 
and  images  withdrawn  from  Jerusalem.  Such  was  the 
Roman  procurator  and  such  the  people  with  whom  he 
had  to  deal.  Thus  the  very  first  act  of  his  procurator- 
ship  was  a  blunder  which  embarrassed  his  whole  sub- 
sequent career. 

A  new  storm  burst  forth  when,  on  another  occasion, 
Pilate  appropriated  funds  from  the  Corban  or  sacred 
treasury  to  complete  an  aqueduct  for  bringing  water  to 
Jerusalem  from  the  "  Pools  of  Solomon."  This  was 
certainly  a  most  useful  enterprise;  and,  ordinarily, 
would  speak  well  for  the  statesmanship  and  adminis- 
trative ability  of  the  procurator.  But,  in  this  instance, 
it  was  only  another  exhibition  of  tactless  behavior  in 


PONTIUS    PILATE  Sy 

dealing  with  a  stubborn  and  peculiar  people.  The 
Jews  had  a  very  great  reverence  for  whatever  was  set 
apart  for  the  Corban,  and  they  considered  it  a  form 
of  awful  impiety  to  devote  its  funds  to  secular  pur- 
poses. Pilate,  we  must  assume,  was  well  acquainted 
with  their  religious  scruples  in  this  regard,  and  his 
open  defiance  of  their  prejudices  was  an  illustration 
not  of  courage,  but  of  weakness  in  administrative  mat- 
ters. Moreover,  his  final  conduct  in  the  matter  of  the 
aqueduct  revealed  a  malignant  quality  in  the  temper 
of  the  man.  On  one  occasion  when  he  was  getting 
ready  to  go  to  Jerusalem  to  supervise  the  building  of 
this  work,  he  learned  that  the  people  would  again  im- 
portune him,  as  in  the  case  of  the  standards  and  the 
images.  He  then  deliberately  caused  some  of  his  sol- 
diers to  be  disguised  as  Jewish  citizens,  had  them 
armed  with  clubs  and  daggers,  which  they  carried  con- 
cealed beneath  their  upper  garments;  and  when  the 
multitude  approached  him  to  make  complaints  and  to 
present  their  petitions,  he  gave  a  preconcerted  signal, 
at  which  the  assassins  beat  down  and  cut  to  pieces  great 
numbers  of  the  helpless  crowds.  Pilate  was  victorious 
in  this  matter;  for  the  opposition  to  the  building  of 
the  aqueduct  was  thus  crushed  in  a  most  bloody  man- 
ner. But  hatred  against  Pilate  was  stirred  up  afresh 
and  intensified  in  the  hearts  of  the  Jews. 

A  third  act  of  defiance  of  the  religious  prejudices  of 
the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  illustrates  not  only  the  ob- 
stinacy but  the  stupidity  as  well  of  the  deputy  of  Caesar 
in  Judea.  In  the  face  of  his  previous  experiences,  he 
insisted  on  hanging  up  in  Herod's  palace  certain  gilt 


88  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

shields  dedicated  to  Tiberius.  The  Jews  remonstrated 
with  him  in  vain  for  this  new  outrage  upon  their 
national  feelings.  They  were  all  the  more  indignant 
because  they  believed  that  he  had  done  it,  "  less  for  the 
honor  of  Tiberius  than  for  the  annoyance  of  the  Jewish 
people."  Upon  the  refusal  of  Pilate  to  remove  the 
shields,  a  petition  signed  by  the  leading  men  of  the  na- 
tion, among  whom  were  the  four  sons  of  Herod,  was 
addressed  to  the  emperor,  asking  for  the  removal  of 
the  offensive  decorations.  Tiberius  granted  the  request 
and  the  shields  were  taken  from  Jerusalem  and  depos- 
ited in  the  temple  of  Augustus  at  Caesarea — "  And  thus 
were  preserved  both  the  honor  of  the  emperor  and  the 
ancient  customs  of  the  city."  ^ 

The  instances  above  cited  are  recounted  in  the  works 
of  Josephus "  and  Philo.  But  the  New  Testament  also 
contains  intimations  that  Pilate  was  a  cruel  and  reck- 
less governor  in  his  dealings  with  the  Jews.  Accord- 
ing to  St.  Luke  xiii.  i:  "There  were  present  at  that 
season  some  that  told  him  of  the  Galileans,  whose 
blood  Pilate  had  mingled  with  their  sacrifices."  Noth- 
ing definite  is  known  of  this  incident  mentioned  by 
the  Evangelist.  But  it  probably  refers  to  the  fact 
that  Pilate  had  put  to  the  sword  a  number  of  Gali- 
leans while  they  were  offering  their  sacrifices  at 
Jerusalem. 

His  Character. — The  estimates  of  the  character  of 
Pilate  are  as  varied  as  the  races  and  creeds  of  men. 
Both  Josephus  and  Philo  have  handed  down  to  poster- 

1  Philo,  "De  Legatione  ad  Cajum,"  Sec.  38,  ed.  Mangey,  II.  589  sq. 

2  Josephus,  "Ant.,"  XVIII.  3,  1. 


PONTIUS    PILATE  89 

ity  a  very  ugly  picture  of  the  sixth  Roman  procurator 
of  Judea.  Philo  charges  him  with  "  corruptibility, 
violence,  robberies,  ill-treatment  of  the  people,  griev- 
ances, continuous  executions  without  even  the  form  of 
a  trial,  endless  and  intolerable  cruelties."  If  we  were 
to  stop  with  this,  we  should  have  a  very  poor  impres- 
sion of  the  deputy  of  Tiberius;  and,  indeed  at  best,  we 
can  never  either  admire  or  love  him.  But  there  is  a 
tender  and  even  pathetic  side  to  the  character  of  Pilate, 
which  is  revealed  to  us  by  the  Evangelists  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  pure-hearted,  gentle-minded  authors 
of  the  Gospels,  in  whose  writings  there  is  not  even  a 
tinge  of  bitterness  or  resentment,  have  restored  "  for  us 
the  man  within  the  governor,  with  a  delicacy,  and  even 
tenderness,  which  make  the  accusing  portrait  of  Philo 
and  Josephus  look  like  a  hard,  revengeful  daub."  In- 
stead of  painting  him  as  a  monster,  they  have  linked 
conscience  to  his  character  and  placed  mercy  in  his 
heart,  by  their  accounts  of  his  repeated  attempts  to  re- 
lease Jesus.  The  extreme  of  pity  and  of  pathos,  de- 
rived from  these  exquisitely  merciful  side  touches  of 
the  gentle  biographers  of  the  Christ,  is  manifested  in 
the  opinion  of  Tertullian  that  Pilate  was  virtually  a 
Christian  at  heart.^ 

A  further  manifestation  is  the  fact  that  the  Abys- 
sinian Church  of  Christians  has  canonized  him  and 
placed  his  name  in  the  calendar  on  June  25th. 

A  still  further  revelation  of  this  spirit  of  regarding 
Pilate  merely  as  a  sacred  instrument  in  the  hands  of 
God  is  shown  by  the  Apocryphal  Gospel  of  Nicode- 

^  Apol.  c.  21  ("jam  pro  sua  conscientia  Cristianum"). 


90  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

mus  which  speaks  of  him  as  "  uncircumcised  in  flesh 
but  circumcised  in  heart." 

Renan  has  called  him  a  good  administrator,  and  has 
sought  to  condone  his  brutal  treatment  of  the  Jews  by 
pointing  to  the  necessity  of  vigorous  action  in  dealing 
with  a  turbulent  and  fanatical  race.  But  the  combined 
efforts  of  both  sacred  and  secular  apologists  are  still  not 
sufficient  to  save  the  name  of  Pilate  from  the  scorn  and 
reprobation  of  mankind.  That  he  was  not  a  bad  man 
in  the  worst  sense  of  the  term  is  manifest  from  the 
teachings  of  the  Gospel  narratives.  To  believe  that  he 
was  wholly  without  conscience  is  to  repudiate  the  reve- 
lations of  these  sacred  writings.  Of  wanton  cruelty 
and  gratuitous  wickedness,  he  was  perhaps  incapable. 
But  the  circumstances  of  his  birth  and  breeding;  his 
descent  from  a  renegade  father;  his  adventurous  life 
in  the  army  of  Germanicus;  his  contact  with  and  ab- 
sorption of  the  skepticism  and  debauchery  of  Rome; 
his  marriage  to  a  woman  of  questionable  virtue  whose 
mother  was  notoriously  coarse  and  lewd — all  these 
things  had  given  coloring  to  the  character  of  Pilate 
and  had  stricken  with  inward  paralysis  the  moral  fiber 
of  his  manhood.  And  now,  in  the  supreme  moment  of 
his  life  and  of  history,  from  his  nerveless  grasp  fell  the 
reins  of  fate  and  fortune  that  destiny  had  placed  within 
his  hands.  Called  upon  to  play  a  leading  role  in  the 
mighty  drama  of  the  universe,  his  craven  cowardice 
made  him  a  pitiable  and  contemptible  figure.  A 
splendid  example  this,  the  conduct  of  Pilate,  for  the 
youth  of  the  world,  not  to  imitate  but  to  shun!  Let 
the  young  men  of  America  and  of  all  the  earth  remem- 


PONTIUS    PILATE  91 

ber  that  a  crisis  is  allotted  to  every  life.  It  may  be  a 
great  one  or  a  small  one,  but  it  will  come  either  invited 
or  unbidden.  The  sublime  courage  of  the  soul  does  not 
avoid,  but  seeks  this  crisis.  The  bravest  and  most  holy 
aspirations  leap  at  times  like  angels  from  the  temple 
of  the  brain  to  the  highest  heaven.  Never  a  physician 
who  does  not  long  for  the  skill  that  discovers  a  remedy 
for  disease  and  that  will  make  him  a  Pasteur  or  a 
Koch;  never  a  poet  that  does  not  beseech  the  muse  to 
inspire  him  to  write  a  Hamlet  or  a  Faust;  never  a  gen- 
eral of  armies  who  would  not  fight  an  Austerlitz  battle. 
Every  ambitious  soul  fervently  prays  for  strength, 
when  the  great  crisis  comes,  to  swing  the  hammer  of 
the  Cyclop  with  the  arm  of  the  Titan.  Let  the  young 
aspirant  for  the  glories  of  the  earth  and  the  rewards  of 
heaven  remember  that  youth  is  the  time  for  the  forma- 
tion of  that  courage  and  the  gathering  of  that  strength 
of  which  victory  is  born.  Let  him  remember  that  if  he 
degrades  his  physical  and  spiritual  manhood  in  early 
life,  the  coming  of  the  great  day  of  his  existence  will 
make  him  another  Pilate — cringing,  crouching,  and 
contemptible. 

The  true  character  of  the  Roman  judge  of  Jesus  is 
thus  very  tersely  given  by  Dr.  EUicott:  "  A  thorough 
and  complete  type  of  the  later  Roman  man  of  the 
world:  stern,  but  not  relentless;  shrewd  and  world- 
worn,  prompt  and  practical,  haughtily  just,  and  yet,  as 
the  early  writers  correctly  perceived,  self-seeking  and 
cowardly;  able  to  perceive  what  was  right,  but  without 
moral  strength  to  follow  it  out."  ^ 

^  "Historical  Lectures,"  6th  ed.  p.  350. 


92  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

His  End. — Pilate's  utter  recklessness  was  the  final 
cause  of  his  undoing.  It  was  an  old  belief  among  the 
Samaritans  that  Moses  buried  the  sacred  vessels  of 
the  temple  on  Mt.  Gerizim.  An  impostor,  a  sort  of 
pseudo-prophet,  promised  the  people  that  if  they 
would  assemble  on  the  top  of  the  mountain,  he  would 
unearth  the  holy  utensils  in  their  presence.  The  sim- 
ple-minded Samaritans  assembled  in  great  numbers  at 
the  foot  of  the  Mount,  and  were  preparing  to  ascend, 
when  Pilate  on  the  pretense  that  they  were  revolution- 
ists, intercepted  them  with  a  strong  force  of  horse  and 
foot.  Those  who  did  not  immediately  submit  were 
either  slain  or  put  to  flight.  The  most  notable  among 
the  captives  were  put  to  death.  The  Samaritans  at 
once  complained  to  Vitellius,  the  legate  in  Syria  at  that 
time.  Vitellius  at  once  turned  over  the  administration 
of  Judea  to  Marcellus  and  ordered  Pilate  to  leave  for 
Rome  in  order  to  give  an  account  to  the  emperor  of  the 
charges  brought  against  him  by  the  Jews.^  Before  he 
arrived  in  Italy,  Tiberius  had  died;  but  Pilate  never 
returned  to  the  province  over  which  he  had  ruled  dur- 
ing ten  bloody  and  eventful  years. 

"  Paradosis  Pilatiy — The  death  of  Pilate  is  clouded 
in  mystery  and  legend.  Where  and  when  he  died  is 
not  known.  Two  apocryphal  accounts  are  interesting, 
though  false  and  ridiculous.  According  to  one  legend, 
the  "  Paradosis  Pilati,"  the  emperor  Tiberius,  startled 
and  terrified  at  the  universal  darkness  that  had  fallen 
on  the  Roman  world  at  the  hour  of  the  crucifixion, 
summoned  Pilate  to  Rome  to  answer  for  having  caused 

1  Josephus,  "Ant.,"  XVIII.  3,  2. 


PONTIUS    PILATE  93 

it.  He  was  found  guilty  and  condemned  to  death;  but 
before  he  was  executed,  he  prayed  to  Jesus  that  he 
might  not  be  destroyed  in  eternity  with  the  wicked 
Jews,  and  pleaded  ignorance  as  an  excuse  for  having 
delivered  the  Christ  to  be  crucified.  A  voice  from 
heaven  answered  his  prayer,  and  assured  him  that  all 
generations  would  call  him  blessed,  and  that  he  should 
be  a  witness  for  Christ  at  his  second  coming  to  judge 
the  Twelve  Tribes  of  Israel.  He  was  then  executed; 
an  angel,  according  to  the  legend,  received  his  head; 
and  his  wife  died  from  joy  and  was  buried  with 
him. 

"  Mors  Pi/atiy — According  to  another  legend,  the 
'*  Mors  Pilati,"  Tiberius  had  heard  of  the  miracles  of 
healing  wrought  by  Jesus  in  Judea.  He  ordered  Pi- 
late to  conduct  to  Rome  the  man  possessed  of  such 
divine  power.  But  Pilate  was  forced  to  confess  that 
he  had  crucified  the  miracle  worker.  The  messenger 
sent  by  Tiberius  met  Veronica  who  gave  him  the  cloth 
that  had  received  the  impress  of  the  divine  features. 
This  was  taken  to  Rome  and  given  to  the  emperor,  who 
was  restored  to  health  by  it.  Pilate  was  summoned 
immediately  to  stand  trial  for  the  execution  of  the 
Christ.  He  presented  himself  wearing  the  holy  tunic. 
This  acted  as  a  charm  upon  the  emperor,  who  tempo- 
rarily relented.  After  a  time,  however,  Pilate  was 
thrown  into  prison,  where  he  committed  suicide.  His 
body  was  thrown  into  the  Tiber.  Storms  and  tempests 
immediately  followed,  and  the  Romans  were  com- 
pelled to  take  out  the  corpse  and  send  it  to  Vienne, 
where  it  was  cast  into  the  Rhone.     But  as  the  storms 


94  THE    TRIAL   OF    JESUS 

and  tempests  came  again,  the  body  was  again  removed 
and  sent  to  Lucerne,  where  it  was  sunk  in  a  deep  pool, 
surrounded  by  mountains  on  all  sides.  Even  then,  it 
is  said,  the  water  of  the  pool  began  to  boil  and  bubble 
strangely. 

This  tradition  must  have  had  its  origin  in  an  early 
attempt  to  connect  the  name  of  Pilate  with  Mt.  Pilatus 
that  overlooks  Lake  Lucerne.  Another  legend  con- 
nected with  this  mountain  is  that  Pilate  sought  to  find 
an  asylum  from  his  sorrows  in  its  shadows  and  recesses; 
that,  after  spending  years  in  remorse  and  despair, 
wandering  up  and  down  its  sides,  he  plunged  into  the 
dismal  lake  which  occupies  its  summit.  In  times  past, 
popular  superstition  was  wont  to  relate  how  "  a  form 
is  often  seen  to  emerge  from  the  gloomy  waters,  and 
go  through  the  action  of  washing  his  hands;  and 
when  he  does  so,  dark  clouds  of  mist  gather  first 
round  the  bosom  of  the  Infernal  Lake  (such  as  it 
has  been  styled  of  old)  and  then  wrapping  the  whole 
upper  part  of  the  mountain  in  darkness,  presage  a 
tempest  or  hurricane  which  is  sure  to  follow  in  a 
short  space."  ^ 

The  superstitious  Swiss  believed  for  many  centuries 
that  if  a  stone  were  thrown  into  the  lake  a  violent 
storm  would  follow.  For  many  years  no  one  was  per- 
mitted to  visit  it  without  special  authority  from  the 
officers  of  Lucerne.  The  neighboring  shepherds  bound 
themselves  by  a  solemn  oath,  which  they  renewed  an- 
nually, never  to  guide  a  stranger  to  it."    The  strange 

1  Scott,  "Anne  of  Geierstein,"  Chap.  I. 

2  Gessner,  "Descript.  Mont.  Pilat,"  Zurich,  1555. 


PONTIUS    PILATE  95 

spell  was  broken,  however,  and  the  legend  exploded  in 
1584,  when  Johannes  Miiller,  cure  of  Lucerne,  was 
bold  enough  to  throw  stones  into  the  lake,  and  to  stand 
by  complacently  to  await  the  consequences/ 

1  Golbery,  "Univcrs  Pittoresque  de  la  Suisse,"  p.  327. 


CHAPTER   VIII 

JESUS  BEFORE  PILATE 


T  the  close  of  their  trial,  accord- 
ing to  Matthew  ^  and  Mark,-  the 
high  priest  and  the  entire  Sanhe- 
drin  led  Jesus  away  to  the  tri- 
bunal of  the  Roman  governor. 
It  was  early  morning,  probably 
between  six  and  seven  o'clock, 
when  the  accusing  multitude 
moved  from  the  judgment  seat 
of  Caiaphas  to  the  Praetorium  of  Pilate.  Oriental 
labor  anticipates  the  day  because  of  the  excessive  heat 
of  noon;  and,  at  daybreak.  Eastern  life  is  all  astir.  To 
accommodate  the  people  and  to  enjoy  the  repose  of 
midday,  Roman  governors,  Suetonius  tells  us,  mounted 
the  bema  at  sunrise.  The  location  of  the  judgment 
hall  of  Pilate  in  Jerusalem  is  not  certainly  known.  It 
may  have  been  in  the  Castle  of  Antonia,  a  frowning 
fortress  that  overlooked  the  Temple  and  its  courts. 
Much  more  probably,  however,  it  was  the  magnificent 
palace  of  Herod,  situated  in  the  northwest  quarter  of 
the  city.  This  probability  is  heightened  by  the  fact 
that  it  was  a  custom  born  of  both  pride  and  pleasure, 
for  Roman  procurators  and  proconsuls  to  occupy  the 

1  Matt,  xxvii.  1,2.  2  Mark  xv.  i. 

96 


JESUS    BEFORE    PILATE  97 

splendid  edifices  of  the  local  kings.  The  Roman  pro- 
praetor of  Sicily  dwelt  in  the  Castle  of  King  Hiero; 
and  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  Pilate  would  have 
passed  his  time  while  at  Jerusalem  in  the  palace  of 
Herod.  This  building  was  frequently  called  the 
"  King's  Castle,"  sometimes  was  styled  the  "  Praeto- 
rium,"  and  was  often  given  the  mixed  name  of 
"  Herod's  Praetorium."  But,  by  whatever  name 
known,  it  was  of  gorgeous  architecture  and  magnifi- 
cent proportions.  Keim  describes  it  as  "  a  tyrant's 
stronghold  and  in  part  a  fairy  pleasure-house."  A 
wall  thirty  cubits  high  completely  encircled  the  build- 
ings of  the  palace.  Beautiful  white  towers  crowned 
this  wall  at  regular  intervals.  Three  of  these  were 
named  in  honor  of  Mariamne,  the  wife;  Hippicus, 
the  friend;  and  Phasaelus,  the  brother  of  the  king. 
Within  the  inclosure  of  the  wall,  a  small  army  could 
have  been  garrisoned.  The  floors  and  ceilings  of  the 
palace  were  decorated  and  adorned  with  the  finest 
woods  and  precious  stones.  Projecting  from  the  main 
building  were  two  colossal  marble  wings,  named  for 
two  Roman  imperial  friends,  the  Caesareum  and  the 
iEgrippeum.  To  a  person  standing  in  one  of  the  tow- 
ers, a  magnificent  prospect  opened  to  the  view.  Sur- 
rounding the  castle  walls  were  beautiful  green  parks, 
intercepted  with  broad  walks  and  deep  canals.  Here 
and  there  splashing  fountains  gushed  from  brazen 
mouths.  A  hundred  dovecots,  scattered  about  the 
basins  and  filled  with  cooing  and  fluttering  inmates, 
lent  charm  and  animation  to  the  scene.  And  to  crown 
the  whole,  was  the  splendid  panorama  of  Jerusalem 


98  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

stretching  away  among  the  hills  and  valleys.  Such  was 
the  residence  of  the  Roman  knight  who  at  this  time 
ruled  Judea.  And  yet,  with  all  its  regal  splendor  and 
magnificence,  he  inhabited  it  only  a  few  weeks  in  each 
year.  The  Jewish  metropolis  had  no  fascination  what- 
ever for  the  tastes  and  accomplishments  of  Pilate. 
"  The  saddest  region  in  the  world,"  says  Renan,  who 
had  been  imbued,  from  long  residence  there,  with  its 
melancholy  character,  "  is  perhaps  that  which  sur- 
rounds Jerusalem."  "  To  the  Spaniard,"  says  Rosadi, 
"  who  had  come  to  Jerusalem,  by  way  of  Rome,  and 
who  was  also  of  courtly  origin,  there  could  have  been 
nothing  pleasing  in  the  parched,  arid  and  colorless  na- 
ture of  Palestine,  much  less  in  the  humble,  mystic,  out- 
at-elbows  existence  of  its  people.  Their  superstition, 
which  would  have  nothing  of  Roman  idolatry,  which 
was  their  sole  belief,  their  all,  appeared  to  him  a  rea- 
sonable explanation,  and  a  legitimate  one,  of  their  dis- 
dain and  opposition.  He  therefore  detested  the  Jews, 
and  his  detestation  was  fully  reciprocated."  It  is 
not  surprising,  then,  that  he  preferred  to  reside  at 
Cssarea  by  the  sea  where  were  present  Roman  modes 
of  thought  and  forms  of  life.  He  visited  Jerusalem  as 
a  matter  of  official  duty,  "  during  the  festivals,  and 
particularly  at  Easter  with  its  dreaded  inspirations  of 
the  Jewish  longing  for  freedom,  which  the  festival,  the 
air  of  spring  and  the  great  rendezvous  of  the  nation, 
charmed  into  activity."  In  keeping  with  this  custom, 
Pilate  was  now  in  the  Jewish  Capital  on  the  occasion 
of  the  feast  of  the  Passover.  ^< 

Having  condemned  Him  to  death  themselves,  the 


JESUS    BEFORE    PILATE  99 

Sanhedrin  judges  were  compelled  to  lead  Jesus  away 
to  the  Praetorium  of  the  Roman  governor  to  see  what 
he  had  to  say  about  the  case ;  whether  he  would  reverse 
or  affirm  the  condemnation  which  they  had  pro- 
nounced. Between  dawn  and  sunrise,  they  were  at  the 
palace  gates.  Here  they  were  compelled  to  halt.  The 
Passover  had  commenced,  and  to  enter  the  procurator's 
palace  at  such  a  time  was  to  incur  Levitic  contamina- 
tion, A  dozen  judicial  blunders  had  marked  the  pro- 
ceedings of  their  own  trial  in  the  palace  of  Caiaphas. 
And  yet  they  hesitated  to  violate  a  purely  ritual  regu- 
lation in  the  matter  of  ceremonial  defilement.  This 
regulation  was  a  prohibition  to  eat  fermented  food 
during  the  Passover  Feast,  and  was  sacred  to  the  mem- 
ory of  the  great  deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage 
when  the  children  of  Israel,  in  their  flight,  had  no  time 
to  ferment  their  dough  and  were  compelled  to  consume 
it  before  it  had  been  leavened.  Their  purposes  and 
scruples  were  announced  to  Pilate;  and,  in  a  spirit  of 
gracious  and  politic  condescension,  he  removed  the 
difficulty  by  coming  out  to  meet  them.  But  this  action 
was  really  neither  an  inconvenience  nor  a  condescen- 
sion ;  for  it  was  usual  to  conduct  Roman  trials  in  the 
open  air.  Publicity  was  characteristic  of  all  Roman 
criminal  proceedings.  And,  in  obedience  to  this  prin- 
ciple, we  find  that  the  proconsul  of  Achaia  at  Corinth, 
the  city  magistrates  in  Macedonia,  and  the  procurators 
at  Cssarea  and  Jerusalem,  erected  their  tribunals  in 
the  most  conspicuous  public  places,  such  as  the  market, 
the  race  course,  and  even  upon  the  open  highway.^    An 

1  Keim,  "Jesus  of  Nazara,"  vol.  vi.  p.  84. 


loo  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

example  directly  in  point  is,  'moreover,  that  of  the 
procurator  Florus  who  caused  his  judgment  seat  to  be 
raised  in  front  of  the  palace  of  Herod,  A.D.  66,  and,  en- 
throned thereon,  received  the  great  men  of  Jerusalem 
who  came  to  see  him  and  gathered  around  his  tribunal. 
To  the  same  place,  according  to  Josephus,  the  Jewish 
queen  Bernice  came  barefoot  and  suppliant  to  ask 
favors  of  Florus/  The  act  of  Pilate  in  emerging  from 
the  palace  to  meet  the  Jews  was,  therefore,  in  exact 
compliance  with  Roman  custom.  His  judgment  seat 
was  doubtless  raised  immediately  in  front  of  the  en- 
trance and  between  the  great  marble  wings  of  the 
palace.  Pilate's  tribune  or  benia  was  located  in  this 
space  on  the  elevated  spot  called  Gabaatha,  an  Ara- 
maic word  signifying  an  eminence,  a  *'  hump."  The 
same  place  in  Greek  was  called  Lithostroton,  and  sig- 
nified "  The  Pavement,"  because  it  was  laid  with 
Roman  marble  mosaic.  The  location  on  an  eminence 
was  in  accordance  with  a  maxim  of  Roman  law  that  all 
criminal  trials  should  be  directed  from  a  raised  tri- 
bunal where  everybody  could  see  and  understand  what 
was  being  said  and  done.  The  ivory  curule  chair  of 
the  procurator,  or  perhaps  the  ancient  golden  royal 
chair  of  Archelaus  was  placed  upon  the  tessellated 
pavement  and  was  designed  for  the  use  of  the  governor. 
As  a  general  thing,  there  was  sitting  room  on  the  tri- 
bunal for  the  assessors,  the  accusers  and  the  accused. 
But  such  courtesies  and  conveniences  were  not  ex- 
tended to  the  despised  subjects  of  Judea;  and  Jesus,  as 
,well  as  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin,  was  compelled 

1  Josephus,  "  Wars  of  the  Jews,"  II.  14,  8;  II.  15,  I. 


JESUS    BEFORE    PILATE  loi 

V 

to  stand.  The  Latin  language  was  the  official  tongue 
of  the  Roman  empire,  and  was  generally  used  in  the 
administration  of  justice.  But  at  the  trial  of  Jesus  it 
is  believed  that  the  Greek  language  was  the  medium 
of  communication.  Jesus  had  doubtless  become  ac- 
quainted with  Greek  in  Galilee  and  probably  replied 
to  Pilate  in  that  tongue.  This  is  the  opinion,  at 
least,  of  both  Keim  ^  and  Geikie.-  The  former 
asserts  that  there  was  no  interpreter  called  at  the 
trial  of  Christ.  It  is  also  reasonably  certain  that  no 
special  orator  like  Tertullus,  who  informed  the  gov- 
ernor against  Paul,  was  present  to  accuse  Jesus. ^ 
Doubtless  Caiaphas  the  high  priest  played  this  im- 
portant role. 

When  Pilate  had  mounted  the  bema,  and  order  had 
been  restored,  he  asked: 

"  What  accusation  bring  ye  against  this  man?  " 
This  question  is  keenly  suggestive  of  the  presence  of 
a  judge  and  of  the  beginning  of  a  solemn  judicial  pro- 
ceeding. Every  word  rings  with  Roman  authority 
and  administrative  capacity.  The  suggestion  is  also 
prominent  that  accusation  was  a  more  important  ele- 
ment in  Roman  criminal  trials  than  inquisition.  This 
suggestion  is  reenforced  by  actual  dictum  from  the  lips 
of  Pilate's  successor  in  the  same  place:  "  It  is  not  the 
manner  of  the  Romans  to  deliver  any  man  to  die, 
before  that  he  which  is  accused  have  the  accusers  face 
to  face,  and  have  license  to  answer  for  himself  concern- 
ing the  crime  laid  against  him."  ^ 

1  Keim,  "  Jesus  of  Nazara,"  vol.  vi.  p.  87.  ^  Acts  xxiv.  i. 

2  Geikie,  "The  Life  and  Words  of  Christ,"  vol.  ii.  p.  533,      ^  Acts  xxv.  16. 


I02  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

The  chief  priests  and  scribes  sought  to  evade  this 
question  by  answering: 

"  If  he  were  not  a  malefactor,  we  would  not  have 
delivered  him  up  unto  thee."  ^ 

They  meant  by  this  that  they  desired  the  procurator 
to  waive  his  right  to  retry  the  case;  accept  their  trial 
as  conclusive;  and  content  himself  with  the  mere  exe- 
cution of  the  sentence.  In  this  reply  of  the  priests  to 
the  initial  question  of  the  Roman  judge,  is  also  re- 
vealed the  further  question  of  that  conflict  of  jurisdic- 
tion between  Jews  and  Romans  that  we  have  already 
so  fully  discussed.  "  If  he  were  not  a  malefactor,  we 
would  not  have  delivered  him  up  unto  thee."  These 
words  from  the  mouths  of  the  priests  were  intended  to 
convey  to  the  mind  of  Pilate  the  Jewish  notion  that  a 
judgment  by  the  Sanhedrin  was  all-sufficient;  and  that 
they  merely  needed  his  countersign  to  justify  execu- 
tion. But  Pilate  did  not  take  the  hint  or  view  the 
question  in  that  light.  In  a  tone  of  contemptuous  scorn 
he  simply  replied : 

"  Take  ye  him,  and  judge  him  according  to  your 
law." 

This  answer  indicates  that  Pilate  did  not,  at  first,  un- 
derstand the  exact  nature  of  the  proceedings  against 
Jesus.  He  evidently  did  not  know  that  the  prisoner 
had  been  charged  with  a  capital  ofifense;  else  he  would 
not  have  suggested  that  the  Jews  take  jurisdiction  of 
the  matter.  This  is  clearly  shown  from  the  further 
reply  of  the  priestly  accusers: 

"  It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man  to  death."  ^ 

^  John  xviii,  30.  ^john  xviii.  31. 


JESUS    BEFORE    PILATE  103 

The  advice  of  Pilate  and  the  retort  of  the  Jews  have 
been  construed  in  two  ways.  A  certain  class  of  critics 
have  contended  that  the  procurator  granted  to  the 
Jews  in  this  instance  the  right  to  carry  out  capital 
punishment,  as  others  have  maintained  was  the  case 
in  the  execution  of  Stephen.  This  construction 
argues  that  Pilate  knew  at  once  the  nature  of  the 
accusation. 

Another  class  of  writers  contend  that  the  governor, 
by  this  language,  merely  proposed  to  them  one  of  the 
minor  penalties  which  they  were  already  empowered 
to  execute.  The  objection  to  the  first  interpretation  is 
that  the  Jews  would  have  been  delighted  to  have  such 
power  conferred  upon  them,  and  would  have  exer- 
cised it;  unless  it  is  true,  as  has  been  held,  that  they 
were  desirous  of  throwing  the  odium  of  Christ's  death 
upon  the  Romans.  The  second  construction  is  entirely 
admissible,  because  it  is  consonant  with  the  theory 
that  jurisdiction  in  capital  cases  had  been  withdrawn 
from  the  Sanhedrin,  but  that  the  trial  and  punishment 
of  petty  offenses  still  remained  with  it.  A  third  and 
more  reasonable  interpretation  still  is  that  when  Pilate 
said,  "  Take  ye  him  and  judge  him  according  to  your 
law,"  he  intended  to  give  expression  to  the  hatred  and 
bitterness  of  his  cynical  and  sarcastic  soul.  He  de- 
spised the  Jews  most  heartily,  and  he  knew  that  they 
hated  him.  He  had  repeatedly  outraged  their  reli- 
gious feelings  by  introducing  images  and  shields  into 
the  Holy  City.  He  had  devoted  the  Corban  funds  to 
unhallowed  purposes,  and  had  mingled  the  blood  of 
the  Galileans  with  their  sacrifices.     In  short,  he  had 


I04  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

left  nothing  undone  to  humiliate  and  degrade  them. 
Now  here  was  another  opportunity.  By  telling  them 
to  judge  Jesus  according  to  their  own  laws,  he  knew 
that  they  must  make  a  reply  which  would  be  wound- 
ing and  galling  to  their  race  and  national  pride.  He 
knew  that  they  would  have  to  confess  that  sovereignty 
and  nationality  were  gone  from  them.  Such  a  confes- 
sion from  them  would  be  music  to  his  ear.  The  sub- 
stance of  his  advice  to  the  Jews  was  to  exercise  their 
rights  to  a  certain  point,  to  the  moment  of  condemna- 
tion; but  to  stop  at  the  place  where  their  sweetest  de- 
sires would  be  gratified  with  the  exercise  of  the  rights 
of  sovereignty  and  nationality. 

Modern  poetry  supports  this  interpretation  of  an- 
cient history.  *'  The  Merchant  of  Venice "  reveals 
the  same  method  of  heaping  ridicule  upon  a  Jew  by 
making  him  impotent  to  execute  the  law.  Shylock, 
the  Jew,  in  contracting  a  usurious  loan,  inserted  a 
stipulation  that  if  the  debt  should  not  be  paid  when 
due,  the  debtor  must  allow  a  pound  of  flesh  to  be  cut 
from  his  body.  The  debt  was  not  discharged  at  the 
maturity  of  the  bond,  and  Shylock  made  application 
to  the  Doge  to  have  the  pound  of  human  flesh  deliv- 
ered to  him  in  accordance  with  the  compact.  But  Por- 
tia, a  friend  of  the  debtor,  though  a  woman,  assumed 
the  garb  and  affected  the  speech  of  a  lawyer  in  his  de- 
fense; and,  in  pleading  the  case,  called  tauntingly  and 
exultingly  to  the  Jew: 

This  bond  doth  give  thee  here  no  jot  of  blood; 
The  words  expressly  are,  a  pound  of  flesh: 


JESUS    BEFORE    PILATE  105 

Take  then  thy  bond,  take  thou  thy  pound  of  flesh; 

But,  in  the  cutting  it,  if  thou  dost  shed 

One  drop  of  Christian  blood,  thy  lands  and  goods 

Are  by  the  laws  of  Venice  confiscate 

Unto  the  State  of  Venice.^ 

But  whatever  special  Interpretation  may  be  placed 
upon  the  opening  words  passed  between  the  priestly 
accusers  and  the  Roman  judge,  it  is  clearly  evident  that 
the  latter  did  not  intend  to  surrender  to  the  former  the 
right  to  impose  and  execute  a  sentence  of  death.  The 
substance  of  Pilate's  address  to  the  Jews,  when  they 
sought  to  evade  his  question  concerning  the  accusation 
which  they  had  to  bring  against  Jesus,  was  this:  I  have 
asked  for  a  specific  charge  against  the  man  whom  you 
have  brought  bound  to  me.  You  have  given  not  a 
direct,  but  an  equivocal  answer.  I  infer  that  the  crime 
with  which  you  charge  him  is  one  against  your  own 
laws.  With  such  ofifenses  I  do  not  wish  to  meddle. 
Therefore,  I  say  unto  you:  "Take  ye  him  and  judge 
him  according  to  your  law."  If  I  am  not  to  know  the 
specific  charge  against  him,  I  wall  not  assume  cogni- 
zance of  the  case.  If  the  accusation  and  the  facts 
relied  upon  to  support  it  are  not  placed  before  me,  I 
will  not  sentence  the  man  to  death;  and,  under  the  law, 
you  cannot. 

The  Jews  were  thus  thwarted  in  their  designs.  They 
had  hoped  to  secure  a  countersign  of  their  own  judg- 
ment without  a  retrial  by  the  governor.  They  now 
found  him  in  no  yielding  and  accommodating  mood. 
They  were  thus  forced  against  their  will  and  expecta- 

1  Act  IV.  Scene  i. 


io6  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

tion  to  formulate  specific  charges  against  the  prisoner 
in  their  midst.  The  indictment  as  they  presented  it,  is 
given  in  a  single  verse  of  St.  Luke : 

"  And  they  began  to  accuse  him,  saying,  We  found 
this  fellow  perverting  the  nation,  and  forbidding  to 
give  tribute  to  Caesar,  saying  that  he  himself  is  Christ, 
a  King."  ' 

It  is  noteworthy  that  in  this  general  accusation  is  a 
radical  departure  from  the  charges  of  the  night  before. 
In  the  passage  from  the  Sanhedrin  to  the  Praetorium, 
the  indictment  had  completely  changed.  Jesus  had  not 
been  condemned  on  any  of  the  charges  recorded  in  this 
sentence  of  St.  Luke.  He  had  been  convicted  on  the 
charge  of  blasphemy.  But  before  Pilate  he  is  now 
charged  with  high  treason.  To  meet  the  emergency 
of  a  change  of  jurisdiction,  the  priestly  accusers  con- 
verted the  accusation  from  a  religious  into  a  political 
ofifense.  It  may  be  asked  why  the  Sanhedrists  did  not 
maintain  the  same  charges  before  Pilate  that  they 
themselves  had  considered  before  their  own  tribunal. 
Why  did  they  not  lead  Jesus  into  the  presence  of  the 
Roman  magistrate  and  say:  O  Governor,  we  have  here 
a  Galilean  blasphemer  of  Jehovah.  We  want  him 
tried  on  the  charge  of  blasphemy,  convicted  and  sen- 
tenced to  death.  Why  did  they  not  do  this?  They 
were  evidently  too  shrewd.  Why?  Because,  in  legal 
parlance,  they  would  have  had  no  standing  in  court. 
Why?  Because  blasphemy  was  not  an  offense  against 
Roman  law,  and  Roman  judges  would  generally  as- 
sume cognizance  of  no  such  charges, 

^  Luke  xxiii.  2. 


JESUS    BEFORE    PILATE  107 

The  Jews  understood  perfectly  well  at  the  trial 
before  Pilate  the  principle  of  Roman  procedure  so  ad- 
mirably expressed  a  few  years  later  by  Gallio,  pro- 
consul of  Achaia,  and  brother  of  Seneca:  "  If  it  were  a 
matter  of  wrong  or  wicked  lewdness,  O  ye  Jews,  reason 
would  that  I  should  bear  with  you :  but  if  it  be  a  ques- 
tion of  words  and  names,  and  of  your  law,  look  ye  to 
it;  for  I  will  be  no  judge  of  such  matters."  ^  This  at- 
titude of  Roman  governors  toward  offenses  of  a  re- 
ligious nature  perfectly  explains  the  Jewish  change  of 
front  in  the  matter  of  the  accusation  against  Jesus. 
They  merely  wanted  to  get  themselves  into  a  Roman 
court  on  charges  that  a  Roman  judge  would  consent  to 
try.  In  the  threefold  accusation  recorded  by  the  third 
Evangelist,  they  fully  accomplished  this  result. 

The  first  count  in  the  indictment,  that  He  was  per- 
verting the  nation,  was  vague  and  indefinite,  but  was 
undoubtedly  against  Roman  law,  because  it  was  in  the 
nature  of  sedition,  which  was  one  of  the  forms  of  trea- 
son under  Roman  jurisprudence.  This  charge  of  per- 
verting the  nation  was  in  the  nature  of  the  revival  of 
the  accusation  of  sedition  which  they  had  first  brought 
forward  by  means  of  the  false  witnesses  before  their 
own  tribunal,  and  that  had  been  abandoned  because  of 
the  contradictory  testimony  of  these  witnesses. 

The  second  count  in  the  indictment,  that  He  had  for- 
bidden to  give  tribute  to  Caesar,  was  of  a  more  serious 
nature  than  the  first.  A  refusal,  in  modern  times,  to 
pay  taxes  or  an  attempt  to  obstruct  their  collection,  is 
a  mild  offense  compared  with  a  similar  act  under  an- 

1  Acts  xviii.  14,  15. 


io8  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

cient  Roman  law.  To  forbid  to  pay  tribute  to  Caesar 
in  Judea  was  a  form  of  treason,  not  only  because  it  was 
an  open  defiance  of  the  laws  of  the  Roman  state,  but 
also  because  it  was  a  direct  denial  of  Roman  sover- 
eignty in  Palestine.  Such  conduct  was  treason  under 
the  definitions  of  both  Ulpian  and  Cicero.  The  Jews 
knew  the  gravity  of  the  offense  when  they  sought  to 
entrap  Jesus  in  the  matter  of  paying  tribute  to  Caesar. 
They  believed  that  any  answer  to  the  question  that  they 
had  asked,  would  be  fatal  to  Him.  If  He  advised  to 
pay  the  imperial  tribute,  He  could  be  charged  with 
being  an  enemy  to  His  countrymen,  the  Jews.  If 
He  advised  not  to  pay  the  tribute.  He  would  be 
charged  with  being  a  rebellious  subject  of  Caesar.  His 
reply  disconcerted  and  bewildered  them  when  He 
said:  "  Render  therefore  unto  Cssar  the  things  which 
are  Caesar's;  and  unto  God  the  things  that  are  God's."  ^ 
In  this  sublime  declaration,  the  Nazarene  announced 
the  immortal  principle  of  the  separation  of  church  and 
state,  and  of  religious  freedom  in  all  the  ages.  And 
when,  in  the  face  of  His  answer,  they  still  charged 
Him  with  forbidding  to  pay  tribute  to  Caesar,  they 
seem  to  have  been  guilty  of  deliberate  falsehood. 
Keim  calls  the  charge  "  a  very  flagrant  lie."  Both  at 
Capernaum,-  where  Roman  taxes  were  gathered,  and 
at  Jerusalem,^  where  religious  dues  were  offered,  Jesus 
seems  to  have  been  both  a  good  citizen  and  a  pious 
Jew.  "Jesus  bon  citoyen  "  (Jesus  a  good  citizen)  is 
the  title  of  a  chapter  in  the  famous  work  of  Bossuet 
entitled  "  Politique  tiree  de  I'Ecriture  sainte."     In  it 

1  Matt.  xxii.  21.  2  Matt.  xvii.  24,  25.  ^  Matt.  xxvi.  18,  19. 


JESUS    BEFORE    PILATE  109 

the  great  French  ecclesiastic  describes  very  beautifully 
the  law-abiding  qualities  of  the  citizen-prophet  of 
Galilee.  In  pressing  the  false  charge  that  he  had  ad- 
vised not  to  pay  taxes  to  Rome,  the  enemies  of  Jesus 
revealed  a  peculiar  and  wanton  malignity. 

The  third  count  in  the  indictment,  that  the  prisoner 
had  claimed  to  be  "  Christ  a  King,"  was  the  last  and 
greatest  of  the  charges.  By  this  He  was  deliberately 
accused  of  high  treason  against  Caesar,  the  gravest 
ofifense  known  to  Roman  law.  Such  an  accusation 
could  not  be  ignored  by  Pilate  as  a  loyal  deputy  of 
Tiberius.  The  Roman  monarch  saw  high  treason  in 
every  word  and  act  that  was  uncomplimentary  to  his 
person  or  dangerous  to  his  power.  Fifty-two  prosecu- 
tions for  treason,  says  Tacitus,  took  place  during  his 
reign. 

The  charges  of  high  treason  and  sedition  against 
Jesus  were  all  the  more  serious  because  the  Romans 
believed  Palestine  to  be  the  hotbed  of  insurrection  and 
sedition,  and  the  birthplace  of  pretenders  to  kingly 
powers.  They  had  recently  had  trouble  with  claim- 
ants to  thrones,  some  of  them  from  the  lowest  and  most 
ignoble  ranks.  Judas,  the  son  of  Hezekiah,  whom 
Herod  had  caused  to  be  put  to  death,  proclaimed 
royal  intentions,  gathered  quite  a  multitude  of  adher- 
ents about  him  in  the  neighborhood  of  Sepphoris  in 
Galilee,  raised  an  insurrection,  assaulted  and  captured 
the  palace  of  the  king  at  Sepphoris,  seized  all  the 
weapons  that  were  stored  away  in  it,  and  armed  his 
followers  with  them.  Josephus  does  not  tell  us  what 
became  of  this  royal  pretender;  but  he  does  say  that 


no  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

"  he  became  terrible  to  all  men,  by  tearing  and  rending 
those  that  came  near  him."  ^ 

In  the  province  of  Perea,  a  certain  Simon,  who  was 
formerly  a  slave  of  Herod,  collected  a  band  of  follow- 
ers, and  had  himself  proclaimed  king  by  them.  He 
burned  down  the  royal  palace  at  Jericho,  after  having 
plundered  it.  A  detachment  under  the  command  of 
the  Roman  general  Gratus  made  short  work  of  the 
pretensions  of  Simon  by  capturing  his  adherents  and 
putting  him  to  death. " 

Again,  a  certain  peasant  named  Athronges,  formerly 
a  shepherd,  claimed  to  be  a  king,  and  for  a  long  time, 
in  concert  with  his  four  brothers,  annoyed  the  authori- 
ties of  the  country,  until  the  insurrection  was  finally 
broken  up  by  Gratus  and  Ptolemy.^ 

In  short,  during  the  life  of  Jesus,  Judea  was  passing 
through  a  period  of  great  religious  and  political  ex- 
citement. The  Messiah  was  expected  and  a  king  was 
hoped  for;  and  numerous  pretenders  appeared  from 
time  to  time.  The  Roman  governors  were  constantly 
on  the  outlook  for  acts  of  sedition  and  treason.  And 
when  the  Jews  led  Jesus  into  the  presence  of  Pilate 
and  charged  Him  with  claiming  to  be  a  king,  the  re- 
cent cases  of  Judas,  Simon,  and  Athronges  must  have 
arisen  in  his  mind,  quickened  his  interest  in  the  pre- 
tensions of  the  prisoner  of  the  Jews,  and  must  have 
awakened  his  sense  of  loyalty  as  Caesar's  representative. 
The  lowliness  of  Jesus,  being  a  carpenter,  did  not 
greatly  allay  his  fears;  for  he  must  have  remembered 

1  Josephus,  "Ant.,"  XVII.  lo,  5.       2  Josephus,  "Ant.,"  XVII.  10,  6. 
3  Josephus,  "Ant.,"  XVII.  10,  7. 


JESUS    BEFORE    PILATE  iii 

that  Simon  was  once  a  slave  and  that  Athronges  was 
nothing  more  than  a  simple  shepherd. 

When  Pilate  had  heard  the  accusations  of  the  Jews, 
he  deliberately  arose  from  his  judgment  seat,  gathered 
his  toga  about  him,  motioned  the  mob  to  stand  back, 
and  beckoned  Jesus  to  follow  him  into  the  palace.  St. 
John  alone  tells  us  of  this  occurrence.^ 

At  another  time,  in  the  Galilean  simplicity  and  free- 
dom of  His  nature,  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth  had 
spoken  with  a  tinge  of  censure  and  sarcasm  of  the  rul- 
ers of  the  Gentiles  that  lorded  it  over  their  subjects,^ 
and  had  declared  that  "  they  that  wear  soft  clothing 
are  in  kings'  houses."  ^  Now  the  lowly  Jewish  peasant 
was  entering  for  the  first  time  a  palace  of  one  of  the 
rulers  of  the  Gentiles  in  which  were  soft  raiment  and 
royal  purple.  The  imagination  is  helpless  to  picture 
the  historical  reflections  born  of  the  memories  of  that 
hour.  A  meek  and  lowly  carpenter  enters  a  king's  pal- 
ace on  his  way  to  an  ignominious  death  upon  the  cross ; 
and  yet  the  greatest  kings  of  all  the  centuries  that  fol- 
lowed were  humble  worshipers  in  their  palaces  before 
the  cross  that  had  been  the  instrument  of  his  torture 
and  degradation.  Such  is  the  irony  of  history;  such  is 
the  mystery  of  God's  providence;  such  is  the  mystic 
ebb  and  flow  of  the  tides  and  currents  of  destiny  and 
fate. 

Of  the  examination  of  Jesus  inside  the  palace,  little 
is  known.  Pilate,  it  seems,  brushed  the  first  two 
charges  aside  as  unworthy  of  serious  consideration; 
and  proceeded  at  once  to  examine  the  prisoner  on  the 

1  John  xviii.  33.  2  Matt.  xx.  25.  ^  Matt.  xi.  8. 


112  THE   TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

charge  that  he  pretended  to  be  a  king.  "  If,"  Pilate 
must  have  said,  "  the  fellow  pretends  to  be  a  king,  as 
Simon  and  Athronges  did  before  him;  if  he  says  that 
Judea  has  a  right  to  have  a  king  other  than  Caesar,  he 
is  guilty  of  treason,  and  it  is  my  solemn  duty  as  deputy 
of  Tiberius  to  ascertain  the  fact  and  have  him  put  to 
death." 

The  beginning  of  the  interrogation  of  Jesus  w^ithin 
the  palace  is  reported  by  all  the  Evangelists  in  the  same 
words.  Addressing  the  prisoner,  Pilate  asked:  "Art 
thou  the  King  of  the  Jews?"  "Jesus  answered  him, 
Sayest  thou  this  thing  of  thyself,  or  did  others  tell  it 
thee  of  me?  "^ 

This  was  a  most  natural  and  fitting  response  of  the 
Nazarene  to  the  Roman.  It  was  necessary  first  to 
understand  the  exact  nature  of  the  question  before  an 
appropriate  answer  could  be  made.  Jesus  simply 
wished  to  know  whether  the  question  was  asked  from 
a  Roman  or  a  Jewish,  from  a  temporal  or  a  spiritual 
standpoint.  If  the  interrogation  was  directed  from  a 
Roman,  a  temporal  point  of  view,  His  answer  would 
be  an  emphatic  negative.  If  the  inquiry  had  been 
prompted  by  the  Jews,  it  was  then  pregnant  with  re- 
ligious meaning,  and  called  for  a  different  reply;  one 
that  would  at  once  repudiate  pretensions  to  earthly 
royalty,  and,  at  the  same  time,  assert  His  claims  to  the 
Messiahship  and  heavenly  sovereignty. 

"  Pilate  answered,  Am  I  a  Jew?  Thine  own  nation 
and  the  chief  priests  have  delivered  thee  unto  me: 
What  hast  thou  done?  " 

1  John  xviii.  34. 


JESUS    BEFORE    PILATE  113 

To  this  Jesus  replied:  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
world:  if  my  kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then 
would  my  servants  fight,  that  I  should  not  be  deliv- 
ered to  the  Jews:  but  now  is  my  kingdom  not  from 
hence."  ^ 

This  reply  of  the  Master  is  couched  in  that  involved, 
aphoristic,  strangely  beautiful  style  that  characterized 
His  speech  at  critical  moments  in  His  career.  Its  im- 
port is  clear,  though  expressed  in  a  double  sense:  first 
from  the  Roman  political,  and  then  from  the  Jewish 
religious  side. 

First  He  answered  negatively:  "  My  kingdom  is  not 
of  this  world." 

By  this  He  meant  that  there  was  no  possible  rivalry 
between  Him  and  Caesar.  But,  in  making  this  denial, 
He  had  used  two  words  of  grave  import:  My  King- 
dom. He  had  used  one  word  that  struck  the  ear  of 
Pilate  with  electric  force :  the  word  Kingdom.  In  the 
use  of  that  word,  according  to  Pilate's  reasoning,  Jesus 
stood  self-convicted.  For  how,  thought  Pilate,  can  He 
pretend  to  have  a  Kingdom,  unless  He  pretends  to  be 
a  king?  And  then,  as  if  to  cow  and  intimidate  the 
prisoner,  as  if  to  avoid  an  unpleasant  issue  of  the  affair, 
he  probably  advanced  threateningly  upon  the  Christ, 
and  asked  the  question  which  the  Bible  puts  in  his 
mouth:  "  Art  thou  a  king  then?  " 

Rising  from  the  simple  dignity  of  a  man  to  the 
beauty  and  glory  and  grandeur  of  a  God,  Jesus  used 
the  most  wonderful,  beautiful,  meaningful  words  in 
the  literature  of  the  earth:  "Thou  sayest  that  I  am  a 

1  John  xviii.  36. 


114  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

king.  To  this  end  was  I  born,  and  for  this  cause  came 
I  into  the  world,  that  I  should  bear  witness  unto  the 
truth.  Everyone  that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my 
voice."  * 

This  language  contains  a  perfectly  clear  descrip- 
tion of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  and  of  His  title  to  spir- 
itual sovereignty.  His  was  not  an  empire  of  matter, 
but  a  realm  of  truth.  His  kingdom  differed  widely 
from  that  of  Caesar.  Caesar's  empire  was  over  the 
bodies  of  men;  Christ's  over  their  souls.  The  strength 
of  Caesar's  kingdom  was  in  citadels,  armies,  navies,  the 
towering  Alps,  the  all-engirdling  seas.  The  strength 
of  the  kingdom  of  the  Christ  was  and  is  and  will  ever 
be  in  sentiments,  principles,  ideas,  and  the  saving 
power  of  a  divine  word.  But,  as  clever  and  brilliant 
as  he  must  have  been,  Pilate  could  not  grasp  the  true 
meaning  of  the  words  of  the  Prophet.  The  spiritual 
and  intellectual  grandeur  of  the  Galilean  peasant  was 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  Roman  lord  and  governor.  In 
a  cynical  and  sarcastic  mood,  Pilate  turned  to  Jesus 
and  asked :  ^' What  is  truth  ?"  2 

This  pointed  question  was  the  legitimate  offspring 
of  the  soul  of  Pilate  and  a  natural  product  of  the 
Roman  civilization  of  his  age.  It  was  not  asked  with 
any  real  desire  to  know  the  truth;  for  he  turned  to 
leave  the  palace  before  an  answer  could  be  given.  It 
was  simply  a  blank  response  born  of  mental  wretched- 
ness and  doubt.  If  prompted  by  any  silent  yearning 
for  a  knowledge  of  the  truth,  his  conduct  indicated 
clearly  that  he  did  not  hope  to  have  that  longing  satis- 

*  John  xviii.  37.  ^  John  xviii.  38. 


JESUS    BEFORE    PILATE  115 

fied  by  the  words  of  the  humble  prisoner  in  his  charge. 
"What  is  truth?"  An  instinctive  utterance  this, 
prompted  by  previous  sad  reflections  upon  the  wrecks 
of  philosophy  in  search  of  truth. 

We  have  reason  to  believe  that  Pilate  was  a  man  of 
brilliant  parts  and  studious  habits.  His  marriage  into 
the  Roman  royal  family  argued  not  only  splendid 
physical  endowments,  but  rare  intellectual  gifts  as 
well.  Only  on  this  hypothesis  can  we  explain  his  rise 
from  obscurity  in  Spain  to  a  place  in  the  royal  family 
as  husband  of  the  granddaughter  of  Augustus  and 
foster  daughter  of  Tiberius.  Then  he  was  familiar,  if 
he  was  thus  endowed  and  accomplished,  with  the  de- 
spairing efforts  of  his  age  and  country  to  solve  the 
mysteries  of  life  and  to  ascertain  the  end  of  man.  He 
had  doubtless,  as  a  student,  "  mused  and  mourned  over 
Greece,  and  its  search  of  truth  intellectual — its  keen 
and  fruitless  search,  never-ending,  ever  beginning, 
across  wastes  of  doubt  and  seas  of  speculation  lighted 
by  uncertain  stars."  He  knew  full  well  that  Roman 
philosophy  had  been  wrecked  and  stranded  amidst  the 
floating  debris  of  Grecian  thought  and  speculation. 
He  had  thought  that  the  ultima  ratio  of  Academicians 
and  Peripatetics,  of  Stoics  and  Epicureans  had  been 
reached.  But  here  was  a  new  proposition — a  kingdom 
of  truth  whose  sovereign  had  as  subjects  mere  vagaries, 
simple  mental  conceptions  called  truths — a  kingdom 
whose  boundaries  were  not  mountains,  seas,  and  rivers, 
but  clouds,  hopes,  and  dreams. 

What  did  Pilate  think  of  Jesus?  He  evidently  re- 
garded Him  as  an  amiable  enthusiast,  a  harmless  reli- 


ii6  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

gious  fanatic  from  whom  Cssar  had  nothing  to  fear. 
While  alone  with  Jesus  in  the  palace,  he  must  have 
reasoned  thus  with  himself,  silently  and  contemptu- 
ously: The  mob  outside  tells  me  that  this  man  is 
Rome's  enemy.  Foolish  thought!  We  know  who 
Caesar's  enemies  are.  We  have  seen  and  heard  and 
felt  the  enemies  of  Rome — barbarians  from  beyond  the 
Danube  and  the  Rhine — great  strong  men,  who  can 
drive  a  javelin  not  only  through  a  man,  but  a  horse,  as 
well.  These  are  Caesar's  enemies.  This  strange  and 
melancholy  man,  whose  subjects  are  mere  abstract 
truths,  and  whose  kingdom  is  beyond  the  skies,  can  be 
no  enemy  of  Caesar. 

Believing  this,  he  went  out  to  the  rabble  and  pro- 
nounced a  verdict  of  acquittal :  "  I  find  in  him  no  fault 
at  all." 

Pilate  had  tried  and  acquitted  Jesus.  Why  did  he 
not  release  Him,  and,  if  need  be,  protect  Him  with  his 
cohort  from  the  assaults  of  the  Jews?  Mankind  has 
asked  for  nearly  two  thousand  years  why  a  Roman, 
with  the  blood  of  a  Roman  in  him,  with  the  glorious 
prestige  and  stern  authority  of  the  Roman  empire  at 
his  back,  with  a  Roman  legion  at  his  command,  did 
not  have  the  courage  to  do  the  high  Roman  act.  Pilate 
was  a  moral  and  intellectual  coward  of  arrant  type. 
This  is  his  proper  characterization  and  a  fitting  answer 
to  the  world's  eternal  question. 

The  Jews  heard  his  sentence  of  acquittal  in  sullen 
silence.  Desperately  resolved  to  prevent  His  release, 
they  began  at  once  to  frame  new  accusations. 

"  And  they  were  the  more  fierce,  saying,  He  stirreth 


JESUS    BEFORE    PILATE  117 

up  the  people,  teaching  throughout  all  Jewry,  begin- 
ning from  Galilee  to  this  place."  ^ 

This  charge  was  intended  by  the  Jews  to  serve  a 
double  purpose:  to  strengthen  the  general  accusation 
of  high  treason  recorded  by  St.  Luke;  and  to  embitter 
and  poison  the  mind  of  the  judge  against  the  prisoner 
by  telling  Pilate  that  Jesus  was  from  Galilee.  In  an- 
cient times  Galilee  was  noted  as  the  hotbed  of  riot  and 
sedition.  The  Galileans  were  brave  and  hardy  moun- 
taineers who  feared  neither  Rome  nor  Judea.  As 
champions  of  Jewish  nationality,  they  were  the  fiercest 
opponents  of  Roman  rule ;  and  in  the  final  catastrophe 
of  Jewish  history  they  were  the  last  to  be  driven  from 
the  battlements  of  Jerusalem.  As  advocates  and  pre- 
servers of  the  purity  of  the  primitive  Jewish  faith,  they 
were  relentless  foes  of  Pharisaic  and  Sadducean  hypoc- 
risy as  it  was  manifested  by  the  Judean  keepers  of  the 
Temple.  The  Galileans  were  hated,  therefore,  by  both 
Romans  and  Judeans;  and  the  Sanhedrists  believed 
that  Pilate  would  make  short  work  of  Jesus  if  he 
learned  that  the  prisoner  was  from  Galilee.  But  a  dif- 
ferent train  of  thought  was  excited  in  the  mind  of  the 
Roman  governor.  He  was  thinking  about  one  thing, 
and  they  about  another.  Pilate  showed  himself 
throughout  the  trial  a  craven  coward  and  contemptible 
timeserver.  From  beginning  to  end,  his  conduct  was 
a  record  of  cowardice  and  subterfuge.  He  was  con- 
stantly looking  for  loopholes  of  escape.  His  heart's 
desire  was  to  satisfy  at  once  both  his  conscience  and  the 
mob.    The  mention  of  Galilee  was  a  ray  of  light  that 

^  Luke  xxiii.  5. 


ii8  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

fell  across  the  troubled  path  of  the  cowardly  and  vacil- 
lating judge.  He  believed  that  he  saw  an  avenue  of 
escape.  He  asked  the  Jews  if  Jesus  was  a  Galilean. 
An  affirmative  reply  was  given.  Pilate  then  deter- 
mined to  rid  himself  of  responsibility  by  sending 
Jesus  to  be  tried  by  the  governor  of  the  province  to 
which  He  belonged.  He  felt  that  fortune  favored 
his  design ;  for  Herod,  Tetrarch  of  Galilee,  was  at  that 
very  moment  in  Jerusalem  in  attendance  upon  the 
Passover  feast.  He  acted  at  once  upon  the  happy  idea; 
and,  under  the  escort  of  a  detachment  of  the  Praetorian 
Cohort,  Jesus  was  led  away  to  the  palace  of  the  Macca- 
bees where  Herod  was  accustomed  to  stop  when  he 
came  to  the  Holy  City. 


CHAPTER   IX 


JESUS  BEFORE  HEROD 


T  was  still  early  morning  when 
Jesus,  guarded  by  Roman  sol- 
diers and  surrounded  by  a  jeer- 
ing, scoffing,  raging  multitude 
of  Jews,  was  conducted  to  the 
palace  of  the  Maccabees  on  the 
slope  of  Zion,  the  official  resi- 
dence of  Herod  when  he  came  to 
Jerusalem  to  attend  the  sacred 
festivals.  This  place  was  to  the  northeast  of  the  pal- 
ace of  Herod  and  only  a  few  streets  distant  from  it. 
The  journey  must  have  lasted  therefore  only  a  few 
minutes. 

But  who  was  this  Herod  before  whom  Jesus  now  ap- 
peared in  chains?  History  mentions  many  Herods, 
the  greatest  and  meanest  of  whom  was  Herod  I,  sur- 
named  the  Great,  who  ordered  the  massacre  of  the  In- 
nocents at  Bethlehem.  At  his  death,  he  bequeathed  his 
kingdom  to  his  sons.  But  being  a  client-prince,  a  rex 
socius,  he  could  not  finally  dispose  of  his  realm  without 
the  consent  of  Rome.  Herod  had  made  several  wills, 
and,  at  his  death,  contests  arose  between  his  sons  for 

the  vacant  throne  of  the  father.     Several  embassies 

119 


120  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

were  sent  to  Rome  to  argue  the  rights  of  the  different 
claimants.  Augustus  granted  the  petitioners  many- 
audiences;  and,  after  long  delay,  finally  confirmed 
practically  the  last  will  of  Herod.  This  decision  gave 
Judea,  Samaria,  and  Idumea,  with  a  tribute  of  six  hun- 
dred talents,  to  Archelaus.  Philip  received  the  regions 
of  Gaulanitis,  Auranitis,  Trachonitis,  Batanea,  and 
Iturea,  with  an  income  of  one  hundred  talents.  Herod 
Antipas  was  given  the  provinces  of  Galilee  and  Perea, 
with  an  annual  tribute  of  two  hundred  talents  and  the 
title  of  Tetrarch.  The  title  of  Ethnarch  was  conferred 
upon  Archelaus. 

Herod  Antipas,  Tetrarch  of  Galilee,  was  the  man 
before  whom  Jesus,  his  subject,  was  now  led  to  be 
judged.  The  pages  of  sacred  history  mention  the  name 
of  no  more  shallow  and  contemptible  character  than 
this  petty  princeling,  this  dissolute  Idumaean  Saddu- 
cee.  Compared  with  him,  Judas  is  eminently  respect- 
able. Judas  had  a  conscience  which,  when  smitten 
with  remorse,  drove  him  to  suicide.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  Herod  had  a  spark  of  that  celestial  fire  which 
we  call  conscience.  He  was  a  typical  Oriental  prince 
whose  chief  aim  in  life  was  the  gratification  of  his  pas- 
sions. The  worthlessness  of  his  character  was  so  pro- 
nounced that  it  excited  a  nauseating  disgust  in  the 
mind  of  Jesus,  and  disturbed  for  a  moment  that  serene 
and  lofty  magnanimity  which  characterized  His  whole 
life  and  conduct.  To  Herod  is  addressed  the  only 
purely  contemptuous  epithet  that  the  Master  is  ever 
recorded  to  have  used.  "  And  he  said  unto  them.  Go 
ye,  and  tell  that  fox,  Behold,  I  cast  out  devils,  and  I 


JESUS    BEFORE    HEROD  121 

do  cures  to-day  and  to-morrow,  and  the  third  day  I 
shall  be  perfected."  ^ 

The  son  of  a  father  who  was  ten  times  married  and 
had  murdered  many  of  his  wives;  the  murderer  him- 
self of  John  the  Baptist;  the  slave  of  a  lewd  and 
wicked  woman — what  better  could  be  expected  than  a 
cruel,  crafty,  worthless  character,  whose  attributes 
were  those  of  the  fox? 

But  why  was  Jesus  sent  to  Herod?  Doubtless  be- 
cause Pilate  wished  to  shift  the  responsibility  from  his 
own  shoulders,  as  a  Roman  judge,  to  those  of  the  Gali- 
lean Tetrarch.  A  subsidiary  purpose  may  have  been 
to  conciliate  Herod,  with  whom,  history  says,  he  had 
had  a  quarrel.  The  cause  of  the  trouble  between  them 
is  not  known.  Many  believe  that  the  murder  of  the 
Galileans  while  sacrificing  in  the  Temple  was  the  ori- 
gin of  the  unpleasantness.  Others  contend  that  this 
occurrence  was  the  result  and  not  the  cause  of  the  quar- 
rel between  Pilate  and  Herod.  Still  others  believe 
that  the  question  of  the  occupancy  of  the  magnificent 
palace  of  Herod  engendered  ill  feeling  between  the 
rival  potentates.  Herod  had  all  the  love  of  gorgeous 
architecture  and  luxurious  living  that  characterized 
the  whole  Herodian  family.  And,  besides,  he  doubt- 
less felt  that  he  should  be  permitted  to  occupy  the  pal- 
ace of  his  ancestors  on  the  occasion  of  his  visits  to  Jeru- 
salem. But  Pilate  would  naturally  object  to  this,  as  he 
was  the  representative  of  almighty  Rome  in  a  con- 
quered province  and  could  not  afiford  to  give  way,  in 
a  matter  of  palatial  residence,  to  a  petty  local  prince. 

1  Luke  xiii,  32. 


122  THE   TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

But,  whatever  the  cause,  the  unfriendliness  between 
them  undoubtedly  had  much  to  do  with  the  transfer 
of  Jesus  from  the  Praetorium  to  the  palace  of  the 
Maccabees. 

"  And  when  Herod  saw  Jesus,  he  was  exceeding 
glad:  for  he  was  desirous  to  see  him  for  a  long  season, 
because  he  had  heard  many  things  of  him;  and  he 
hoped  to  have  seen  some  miracle  done  by  him."  ^ 

This  passage  of  Scripture  throws  much  light  upon 
Herod's  opinion  and  estimate  of  Jesus.  Fearing  that 
he  was  the  successor  and  imitator  of  Judas  the  Gaulo- 
nite,  Herod  at  first  sought  to  drive  Him  from  his  prov- 
ince by  sending  spies  to  warn  Him  to  flee.  The  coura- 
geous and  contemptuous  reply  of  Jesus,  in  which  he 
styled  Herod  "  that  fox,"  put  an  end  to  further  at- 
tempts at  intimidation. 

The  notions  of  the  Galilean  Tetrarch  concerning  the 
Galilean  Prophet  seem  to  have  changed  from  time  to 
time.  Herod  had  once  regarded  Jesus  with  feelings 
of  superstitious  dread  and  awe,  as  the  risen  Baptist. 
But  these  apprehensions  had  now  partially  passed 
away,  and  he  had  come  to  look  upon  the  Christ  as  a 
clever  impostor  whose  claims  to  kingship  and  Messiah- 
ship  were  mere  vulgar  dreams.  For  three  years,  Gali- 
lee had  been  ringing  with  the  fame  of  the  Miracle- 
worker;  but  Herod  had  never  seen  his  famous  subject. 
Now  was  his  chance.  And  he  anticipated  a  rare 
occasion  of  magic  and  merriment.  He  doubtless  re- 
garded Jesus  as  a  clever  magician  whose  performance 
would  make  a  rich  and  racy  programme  for  an  hour's 

*  Luke  xxiii.  8. 


JESUS    BEFORE    HEROD  123 

amusement  of  his  court.  This  was  no  doubt  his  domi- 
nant feeling  regarding  the  Nazarene.  But  it  is  never- 
theless very  probable  that  his  Idumaean  cowardice 
and  superstition  still  conjured  images  of  a  drunken 
debauch,  the  dance  of  death,  and  the  bloody  head; 
and  connected  them  with  the  strange  man  now  be- 
fore him. 

No  doubt  he  felt  highly  pleased  and  gratified  to 
have  Jesus  sent  to  him.  The  petty  and  obsequious  vas- 
sal king  was  caught  in  Pilate's  snare  of  flattery.  The 
sending  of  a  noted  prisoner  to  his  judgment  scat  by  a 
Roman  procurator  was  no  ordinary  compliment.  But 
Herod  was  at  once  too  serious  and  too  frivolous  to  as- 
sume jurisdiction  of  any  charges  against  this  prisoner, 
who  had  offended  both  the  religious  and  secular  pow- 
ers of  Palestine.  To  condemn  Jesus  would  be  to  incur 
the  ill  will  and  resentment  of  his  many  followers  in  his 
own  province  of  Galilee.  Besides,  he  had  already  suf- 
fered keenly  from  dread  and  apprehension,  caused  by 
the  association  of  the  names  of  John  and  Jesus,  and  he 
had  learned  that  from  the  blood  of  one  murdered 
prophet  would  spring  the  message  and  mission  of  an- 
other still  more  powerful  and  majestic.  He  was, 
therefore,  unwilling  to  embroil  himself  and  his  domin- 
ions with  the  heavenly  powers  by  condemning  their 
earthly  representatives. 

Again,  though  weak,  crafty  and  vacillating,  he  still 
had  enough  of  the  cunning  of  the  fox  not  to  wish  to 
excite  the  enmity  of  Caesar  by  a  false  judgment  upon 
a  noted  character  whose  devoted  followers  might,  at 
any  moment,  send  an  embassy  to  Rome  to  make  serious 


124  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

and  successful  charges  to  the  Emperor.  He  after- 
wards lost  his  place  as  Tetrarch  through  the  suspicions 
of  Caligula,  who  received  news  from  Galilee  that 
Herod  was  conspiring  against  him.^  The  premoni- 
tions of  that  unhappy  day  probably  now  filled  the 
mind  of  the  Idumsan. 

On  the  other  hand,  Herod  was  too  frivolous  to  con- 
duct from  beginning  to  end  a  solemn  judicial  proceed- 
ing. He  evidently  intended  to  ignore  the  pretensions 
of  Jesus,  and  to  convert  the  occasion  of  His  coming 
into  a  festive  hour  in  which  languor  and  drowsiness 
would  be  banished  from  his  court.  He  had  heard 
much  of  the  miracles  of  the  prisoner  in  his  presence. 
Rumor  had  wafted  to  his  ears  strange  accounts  of  mar- 
velous feats.  One  messenger  had  brought  news  that 
the  Prophet  of  Nazareth  had  raised  from  the  dead  a 
man  named  Lazarus  from  Bethany,  and  also  the  son  of 
the  widow  of  Nain.  Another  had  declared  that  the 
laws  of  nature  suspended  themselves  on  occasion  at 
His  behest;  that  when  He  walked  out  on  the  sea,  He 
did  not  sink;  and  that  He  stilled  the  tempests  with  a 
mere  motion  of  His  hand.  Still  another  reported  that 
the  mighty  magician  could  take  mud  from  the  pool 
and  restore  sight;  that  a  woman,  ill  for  many  months, 
need  only  touch  the  hem  of  His  garment  to  be  made 
whole  again;  and  that  if  He  but  touched  the  flesh  of  a 
leper,  it  would  become  as  tender  and  beautiful  as  that 
of  a  new-born  babe.  These  reports  had  doubtless  been 
received  by  Herod  with  sneers  and  mocking.  But  he 
gathered  from  them  that  Jesus  was  a  clever  juggler 

»  Josephus,  "Ant.,"  XVIII.  7,  i,  2. 


JESUS    BEFORE    HEROD  125 

whose  powers  of  entertainment  were  very  fine;  and  this 
was  sufficient  for  him  and  his  court. 

"  Then  he  questioned  with  him  in  many  words;  but 
he  answered  him  nothing."  ^ 

Herod  thus  opened  the  examination  of  Jesus  by  in- 
terrogating Him  at  length.  The  Master  treated  his 
insolent  questions  with  contemptuous  scorn  and  with- 
ering silence.  No  doubt  this  conduct  of  the  lowly 
Nazarene  greatly  surprised  and  nettled  the  super- 
cilious Idumaean.  He  had  imagined  that  Jesus  would 
be  delighted  to  give  an  exhibition  of  His  skill  amidst 
royal  surroundings.  He  could  not  conceive  that  a 
peasant  would  observe  the  contempt  of  silence  in  the 
presence  of  a  prince.  He  found  it  difficult,  therefore, 
to  explain  this  silence.  He  probably  mistook  it  for  stu- 
pidity, and  construed  it  to  mean  that  the  pretensions  of 
Jesus  were  fraudulent.  He  doubtless  believed  that  his 
captive  would  not  work  a  miracle  because  He  could 
not;  and  that  in  His  failure  to  do  so  were  exploded 
His  claims  to  kingship  and  Messiahship.  At  all 
events,  he  was  evidently  deeply  perplexed;  and  this 
perplexity  of  the  Tetrarch,  in  its  turn,  only  served  to 
anger  the  accusing  priests  who  stood  by. 

*'  And  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  stood  and  vehe- 
mently accused  him."  ^ 

This  verse  from  St.  Luke  clearly  reveals  the  differ- 
ence in  the  temper  and  purposes  of  the  Sanhedrists  on 
the  one  hand,  and  of  Herod  on  the  other.  The  latter 
merely  intended  to  make  of  the  case  of  Jesus  a  farcical 
proceeding   in   which   the   jugglery   of   the   prisoner 

*  Luke  xxiii.  9.  2  Luke  xxxii.  10. 


126  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

would  break  the  monotony  of  a  day  and  banish  all  care 
during  an  idle  hour.  The  priests,  on  the  other  hand, 
were  desperately  bent  upon  a  serious  outcome  of  the 
affair,  as  the  words  "  vehemently  accused  "  suggest. 
In  the  face  of  their  repeated  accusations,  Jesus  con- 
tinued to  maintain  a  noble  and  majestic  silence. 

Modern  criticism  has  sought  to  analyze  and  to  ex- 
plain the  behavior  of  Christ  at  the  court  of  Herod. 
"  How  comes  it,"  asks  Strauss,  *'  that  Jesus,  not  only  the 
Jesus  without  sin  of  the  orthodox  school,  but  also  the 
Jesus  who  bowed  to  the  constituted  authorities,  who 
says  '  Give  unto  Caesar  that  which  is  Caesar's ' — how 
comes  it  that  he  refuses  the  answer  due  to  Herod?" 
The  trouble  with  this  question  is  that  it  falsely  assumes 
that  there  was  an  "  answer  due  to  Herod."  In  the  first 
place,  it  must  be  considered  that  Herod  was  not  Caesar. 
In  the  next  place,  we  must  remember  that  St.  Luke, 
the  sole  Evangelist  who  records  the  event,  does  not 
explain  the  character  of  the  questions  asked  by  Herod. 
Strauss  himself  says  that  they  "  displayed  simple  curi- 
osity." Admitting  that  Jesus  acknowledged  the  juris- 
diction of  Herod,  was  He  compelled  to  answer  irrele- 
vant and  impertinent  questions?  We  do  not  know 
what  these  questions  were.  But  we  have  reason  to 
believe  that,  coming  from  Herod,  they  were  not  such 
as  Jesus  was  called  upon  to  answer.  It  is  very  proba- 
ble that  the  prisoner  knew  His  legal  rights;  and  that 
He  did  not  believe  that  Herod,  sitting  at  Jerusalem,  a 
place  without  his  province,  was  judicially  empowered 
to  examine  Him.  If  He  was  not  legally  compelled  to 
answer,  we  are  not  surprised  that  Jesus  refused  to  do  so 


JESUS    BEFORE    HEROD  127 

as  a  matter  of  graciousness  and  accommodation;  for 
we  must  not  forget  that  the  Man-God  felt  that  He  was 
being  questioned  by  a  vulgar  animal  of  the  most  cun- 
ning type. 

But  what  is  certain  from  the  Scriptural  context  is 
that  Herod  felt  chagrined  and  mortified  at  his  failure 
to  evoke  from  Jesus  any  response.  He  was  enraged 
that  his  plans  had  been  foiled  by  one  of  his  own  sub- 
jects, a  simple  Galilean  peasant.  To  show  his  resent- 
ment, he  then  resorted  to  mockery  and  abuse. 

"  And  Herod  with  his  men  of  war  set  him  at  nought, 
and  mocked  him,  and  arrayed  him  in  a  gorgeous  robe, 
and  sent  him  again  to  Pilate."  ^ 

We  are  not  informed  by  St.  Luke  what  special 
charge  the  priests  brought  against  Jesus  at  the  judg- 
ment seat  of  Herod.  He  simply  says  that  they  "  stood 
and  vehemently  accused  him."  But  we  are  justified  in 
inferring  that  they  repeated  substantially  the  same  ac- 
cusations which  had  been  made  before  Pilate,  that  He 
had  claimed  to  be  Christ  a  King.  This  conclusion  best 
explains  the  mockery  which  they  sought  to  heap  upon 
Him;  for  in  ancient  times,  when  men  became  candi- 
dates for  office,  they  put  on  white  gowns  to  notify  the 
people  of  their  candidacy.  Again,  Tacitus  assures  us 
that  white  garments  were  the  peculiar  dress  of  illus- 
trious persons;  and  that  the  tribunes  and  consuls  wore 
them  when  marching  before  the  eagles  of  the  legions 
into  battle.^ 

The  meaning  of  the  mockery  of  Herod  was  simply 
this:  Behold  O  Pilate,  the  illustrious  candidate  for  the 

1  Luke  xxiii.  1 1.  2  Tacitus,  "Hist.,"  II.  89. 


128  THE   TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

kingship  of  the  Jews!  Behold  the  imperial  gown  of 
the  royal  peasant  pretender! 

The  appearance  before  Herod  resulted  only  in  the 
humiliation  of  Jesus  and  the  reconciliation  of  Pilate 
and  Herod. 

"  And  the  same  day  Pilate  and  Herod  were  made 
friends  together:  for  before  they  were  at  enmity 
between  themselves."  * 

^  Luke  xxiii.  12. 


CHAPTER   X 


JESUS  AGAIN   BEFORE   PILATE 


HE  sending  of  Jesus  to  Herod 
had  not  ended  the  case;  and 
Pilate  was  undoubtedly  very  bit- 
terly disappointed.  He  had 
hoped  that  the  Galilean  Te- 
trarch  would  assume  complete 
jurisdiction  and  dispose  finally 
of  the  matter.  On  the  contrary, 
J  Herod  simply  mocked  and  bru- 
talized the  prisoner  and  had  him  sent  back  to  Pilate. 
The  Roman  construed  the  action  of  the  Idumaean  to 
mean  an  acquittal,  and  he  so  stated  to  the  Jews. 

"  And  Pilate,  when  he  had  called  together  the  chief 
priests  and  the  rulers  and  the  people.  Said  unto  them, 
Ye  have  brought  this  man  unto  me,  as  one  that  per- 
verteth  the  people:  and,  behold,  I,  having  examined 
him  before  you,  have  found  no  fault  in  this  man  touch- 
ing those  things  whereof  ye  accuse  him:  No,  nor  yet 
Herod:  for  I  sent  you  to  him;  and,  lo,  nothing  worthy 
of  death  is  done  unto  him.  I  will  therefore  chastise 
him,  and  release  him."  ^ 

The  proposal  to  scourge  the  prisoner  was  the  second 
of  those  criminal  and  cowardly  subterfuges  through 


^  Luke  xxiii.  13-16. 


129 


I30  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

which  Pilate  sought  at  once  to  satisfy  his  conscience 
and  the  demands  of  the  mob.  The  chastisement  was  to 
be  a  sop  to  the  rage  of  the  rabble,  a  sort  of  salve  to  the 
wounded  pride  of  the  priests  who  were  disappointed 
that  no  sentence  of  death  had  been  imposed.  The  re- 
lease was  intended  as  a  tribute  to  justice,  as  a  soothing 
balm  and  an  atoning  sacrifice  to  his  own  outraged 
sense  of  justice.  The  injustice  of  this  monstrous  pro- 
posal was  not  merely  contemptible,  it  was  execrable. 
If  Jesus  was  guilty,  He  should  have  been  punished;  if 
innocent,  He  should  have  been  set  free  and  protected 
from  the  assaults  of  the  Jews.         ? 

The  of¥er  of  scourging  first  and  then  the  release  of 
the  prisoner  was  indignantly  rejected  by  the  rabble. 
In  his  desperation,  Pilate  thought  of  another  loop- 
hole of  escape.  <_ 

The  Evangelists  tell  us  that  it  was  a  custom  upon 
Passover  day  to  release  to  the  people  any  single  pris- 
oner that  they  desired.  St.  Luke  asserts  that  the  gov- 
ernor was  under  an  obligation  to  do  so.^  Whether  this 
custom  was  of  Roman  or  Hebrew  origin  is  not  cer- 
tainly known.  Many  New  Testament  interpreters 
have  seen  in  the  custom  a  symbol  of  the  liberty  and 
deliverance  realized  by  Israel  in  its  passage  from 
Egypt  at  the  time  of  the  first  great  Passover.  Others 
have  traced  this  custom  to  the  Roman  practice  of  re- 
leasing a  slave  at  the  Lectisternia,  or  banquets  to  the 
gods.-  Aside  from  its  origin,  it  is  interesting  as  an 
illustration  of  a  universal  principle  in  enlightened 
jurisprudence  of  lodging  somewhere,  usually  with  the 

1  Luke  xxiii,  17.  ^  Livy  v.  13:  "Vinctis  quoque  demptu  vincula." 


JESUS   AGAIN    BEFORE    PILATE  131 

chief  executive  of  a  race  or  nation,  a  power  of  pardon 
which  serves  as  an  extinction  of  the  penal  sanction. 
This  merciful  principle  is  a  pathetic  acknowledgment 
of  the  weakness  and  imperfection  of  all  human  schemes 
of  justice. 

Pilate  resolved  to  escape  from  his  confusion  and 
embarrassment  by  delivering  Jesus  to  the  people,  who 
happened  to  appear  in  great  numbers  at  the  very- 
moment  when  Christ  returned  from  Herod.  The  mul- 
titude had  come  to  demand  the  usual  Passover  deliver- 
ance of  a  prisoner.  The  arrival  of  the  crowd  of  dis- 
interested strangers  was  inopportune  for  the  priests 
and  elders  who  were  clamoring  for  the  life  of  the  pris- 
oner in  their  midst.  They  marked  with  keen  discern- 
ment the  resolution  of  the  governor  to  release  Jesus. 
They  were  equal  to  the  emergency,  and  began  to  whis- 
per among  the  crowd  that  Barabbas  should  be  asked. 

"  And  they  had  then  a  notable  prisoner,  called 
Barabbas.  Therefore  when  they  were  gathered  to- 
gether, Pilate  said  unto  them.  Whom  will  ye  that  I 
release  unto  you?  Barabbas,  or  Jesus  which  is  called 
Christ?  For  he  knew  that  for  envy  they  had  delivered 
him."  ' 

Pilate  believed  that  the  newly  arrived  multitude 
would  be  free  from  the  envy  of  the  priests,  and  that 
they  would  be  satisfied  with  Jesus  whom  they  had,  a 
few  days  before,  welcomed  Into  Jerusalem  with  shouts 
of  joy.  When  they  demanded  Barabbas,  he  still  be- 
lieved that  if  he  offered  them  the  alternative  choice  of 
a  robber  and  a  prophet,  they  would  choose  the  latter. 

1  Matt,  xxvii.  i6-i8. 


132  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

"  But  the  chief  priests  and  elders  persuaded  the  mul- 
titude that  they  should  ask  Barabbas,  and  destroy 
Jesus.  The  governor  answered  and  said  unto  them, 
Whether  of  the  twain  will  ye  that  I  release  unto  you? 
They  said,  Barabbas.  Pilate  saith  unto  them,  What 
shall  I  do  then  with  Jesus  which  is  called  the  Christ? 
They  all  say  unto  him,  Let  him  be  crucified."  ^ 

"  Barabbas,  or  Jesus  which  is  called  the  Christ?  " 
Such  was  the  alternative  offered  by  a  Roman  governor 
to  a  Jewish  mob.  Barabbas  was  a  murderer  and  a  rob- 
ber. Jesus  was  the  sinless  Son  of  God.  An  erring  race 
wandering  in  the  darkness  of  sin  and  perpetually  tast- 
ing the  bitterness  of  life  beneath  the  sun,  preferred  a 
criminal  to  a  prophet.  And  to  the  ghastliness  of  the 
choice  was  added  a  touch  of  the  irony  of  fate.  The 
names  of  both  the  prisoners  were  in  signification  the 
same.  Barabbas  was  also  called  Jesus.  And  Jesus 
Barabbas  meant  Jesus  the  Son  of  the  Father.  This 
frightful  coincidence  w^as  so  repugnant  to  the  Gospel 
writers  that  they  are  generally  silent  upon  it.  In  this 
connection,  Strauss  remarks:  "  According  to  one  read- 
ing, the  man's  complete  name  was  l-qaovs  ySapa^ySa?, 
which  fact  is  noted  only  because  Olshausen  considers  it 
noteworthy.  Barabbas  signifies  '  son  of  the  father,'  and 
consequently  Olshausen  exclaims:  '  All  that  was  essen- 
tial to  the  Redeemer  appears  ridiculous  in  the- assas- 
sin!' and  he  deems  applicable  the  verse:  ^  Ludit  in 
humanis  divina  potentia  rebus.''  We  can  see  nothing 
in  Olshausen's  remark  but  a  Indus  humancB  impo- 
tenti^y  ^ 

1  Matt,  xxvii.  20-22.  ^  Vie,  par.  131. 


JESUS   AGAIN    BEFORE    PILATE  133 

Amidst  the  tumult  provoked  by  the  angry  passions 
of  the  mob,  a  messenger  arrived  from  his  wife  bearing 
news  that  filled  the  soul  of  Pilate  with  superstitious 
dread.  Claudia  had  had  a  dream  of  strange  and  ill- 
boding  character. 

"  When  he  was  set  down  on  the  judgment  seat,  his 
wife  sent  unto  him,  saying.  Have  thou  nothing  to  do 
with  that  just  man:  For  I  have  suffered  many  things 
this  day  in  a  dream  because  of  him."  ^ 

This  dream  of  Pilate's  wife  is  nothing  strange. 
Profane  history  mentions  many  similar  ones.  Calpur- 
nia,  Caesar's  wife,  forewarned  him  in  a  dream  not  to 
go  to  the  senate  house ;  and  the  greatest  of  the  Romans 
fell  beneath  the  daggers  of  Casca  and  Brutus,  because 
he  failed  to  heed  the  admonition  of  his  wife. 

In  the  apocryphal  report  of  Pilate  to  the  emperor 
Tiberius  of  the  facts  of  the  crucifixion,  the  words  of 
warning  sent  by  Claudia  are  given:  "  Beware  said  she 
to  me,  beware  and  touch  not  that  man,  for  he  is  holy. 
Last  night  I  saw  him  in  a  vision.  He  was  walking  on 
the  waters.  He  was  flying  on  the  wings  of  the  winds. 
He  spoke  to  the  tempest  and  to  the  fishes  of  the  lake; 
all  were  obedient  to  him.  Behold!  the  torrent  in 
Mount  Kedron  flows  with  blood,  the  statues  of  Caesar 
are  filled  with  the  filth  of  Gemoniae,  the  columns  of  the 
Interium  have  given  away  and  the  sun  is  veiled  in 
mourning  like  a  vestal  in  the  tomb.  O,  Pilate,  evil 
awaits  thee  if  thou  wilt  not  listen  to  the  prayer  of  thy 
wife.  Dread  the  curse  of  the  Roman  Senate,  dread  the 
powers  of  Cssar." 

1  Luke  xxvii.  19. 


Vajj^  ^^''^\ 


134  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

This  noble  and  lofty  language,  this  tender  and  pa- 
thetic speech,  may  appear  strange  to  those  who  remem- 
ber the  hereditary  stigma  of  the  woman.  If  this  dream 
was  sent  from  heaven,  the  recollection  is  forced  upon 
us  that  the  medium  of  its  communication  was  the  ille- 
gitimate child  of  a  lewd  woman.  But  then  her  char- 
acter was  probably  not  worse  than  that  of  Mary  Mag- 
dalene, who  was  very  dear  to  the  Master  and  has  been 
canonized  not  only  by  the  church,  but  by  the  reverence 
of  the  world. 

It  is  certain,  however,  that  the  dream  of  Claudia  had 
no  determining  effect  upon  the  conduct  of  Pilate. 
Resolution  and  irresolution  alternately  controlled  him. 
Fear  and  superstition  were  uppermost  in  both  mind 
and  heart.  The  Jews  beheld  with  anxious  and  discern- 
ing glance  the  manifestation  of  the  deep  anguish  of  his 
soul.  They  feared  that  the  governor  was  about  to  pro- 
nounce a  final  judgment  of  acquittal.  Exhibiting 
fierce  faces  and  frenzied  feelings,  they  moved  closer 
to  him  and  exclaimed:  "We  have  a  law,  and  by  our 
law  he  ought  to  die,  because  he  made  himself  the  Son 
of  God."  ^ 

Despairing  of  convicting  Jesus  on  a  political  charge, 
they  deliberately  revived  a  religious  one,  and  pre- 
sented to  Pilate  substantially  the  same  accusation  upon 
which  they  had  tried  the  prisoner  before  their  own 
tribunal. 

"  He  made  himself  the  Son  of  God!  "  These  words 
filled  Pilate's  mind  with  a  strange  and  awful  meaning. 
In  the  mythology  and  ancient  annals  of  his  race,  there 

1  John  xix.  7. 


JESUS   AGAIN    BEFORE    PILATE         135 

were  many  legends  of  the  sons  of  the  gods  who  walked 
the  earth  in  human  form  and  guise.  They  were  thus 
indistinguishable  from  mortal  men.  It  was  dangerous 
to  meet  them;  for  to  offend  them  was  to  provoke  the 
wrath  of  the  gods,  their  sires.  These  reflections,  born 
of  superstition,  now  swept  through  Pilate's  mind  with 
terrific  force;  and  the  cries  of  the  mob,  "  He  made 
himself  the  Son  of  God,"  called  from  out  the  deep  re- 
cesses of  his  memory  the  half-forgotten,  half-remem- 
bered stories  of  his  childhood.  Could  not  Jesus,  rea- 
soned Pilate,  be  the  son  of  the  Hebrew  Jehovah  as 
Hercules  was  the  son  of  Jupiter?  Filled  with  super- 
stitious dread  and  trembling  with  emotion,  Pilate 
called  Jesus  inside  the  Temple  a  second  time;  and, 
looking  with  renewed  awe  and  wonder,  asked: 
"Whence  art  thou?"^  But  Jesus  answered  him 
nothing. 

Pilate  came  forth  from  the  judgment  hall  a  second 
time  determined  to  release  the  prisoner;  but  the  Jews, 
marking  his  decision,  began  to  cry  out:  "Away  with 
him,  away  with  him,  crucify  him!"^  Maddened  by 
the  relentless  importunity  of  the  mob,  Pilate  replied 
scornfully  and  mockingly: 

"  Shall  I  crucify  your  king?  " 

The  cringing,  hypocritical  priests  shouted  back  their 
answer: 

"  We  have  no  king  but  Caesar."  ^ 

And  on  the  kingly  idea  of  loyalty  to  Roman  sover- 
eignty they  framed  their  last  menace  and  accusation. 
From  the  quiver  of  their  wrath  they  drew  the  last 

^  John  xix.  9.  2  John  xix,  15.  ^  John  xix.  15. 


136  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

arrow  of  spite  and  hate,  and  fired  it  straight  at  the 
heart  of  Jesus  through  the  hands  of  Pilate: 

"  If  thou  let  this  man  go,  thou  art  not  Caesar's 
friend:  whosoever  maketh  himself  a  king  speaketh 
against  Caesar."  ^ 

This  last  maneuver  of  the  mob  sealed  the  doom  of 
the  Christ.  It  teaches  also  most  clearly  that  Pilate  was 
no  match  for  the  Jews  when  their  religious  prejudices 
were  aroused  and  they  were  bent  on  accomplishing 
their  desires.  They  knew  Pilate  and  he  knew  them. 
They  had  been  together  full  six  years.  He  had  been 
compelled  to  yield  to  them  in  the  matter  of  the  stand- 
ards and  the  eagles.  The  sacred  Corban  funds  had 
been  appropriated  only  after  blood  had  been  shed  in 
the  streets  of  Jerusalem.  The  gilt  shields  of  Tiberius 
that  he  had  placed  in  Herod's  palace  were  taken  down 
at  the  demands  of  the  Jews  and  carried  to  the  temple 
of  Augustus  at  Caesarea.  And  now  the  same  fanatical 
rabble  was  before  him  demanding  the  blood  of  the 
Nazarene,  and  threatening  to  accuse  him  to  Caesar  if 
he  released  the  prisoner.  The  position  of  Pilate  was 
painfully  critical.  He  afterwards  lost  his  procurator- 
ship  at  the  instance  of  accusing  Jews.  The  shadow  of 
that  distant  day  now  fell  like  a  curse  across  his  path- 
way. Nothing  was  so  terrifying  to  a  Roman  governor 
as  to  have  the  people  send  a  complaining  embassy  to 
Rome.  It  was  especially  dangerous  at  this  time.  The 
imperial  throne  was  filled  by  a  morbid  and  suspicious 
tyrant  who  needed  but  a  pretext  to  depose  the  governor 
of  any  province  who  silently  acquiesced  in  traitorous 

^  John  xix.  12. 


JESUS    AGAIN    BEFORE    PILATE  137 

pretensions  to  kingship.  Pilate  trembled  at  these  re- 
flections. His  feelings  of  self-preservation  suggested 
immediate  surrender  to  the  Jews.  But  his  innate  sense 
of  justice,  which  was  woven  in  the  very  fiber  of  his 
Roman  nature,  recoiled  at  the  thought  of  Roman  sanc- 
tion of  judicial  murder.  He  resolved,  therefore,  to 
propitiate  and  temporize.  The  frenzied  rabble  con- 
tinued to  cry:  "  Crucify  him!  Crucify  him!  "  Three 
times,  in  reply,  Conscience  sent  to  Pilate's  trembling 
lips  the  searching  question:  "Why,  what  evil  hath  he 
done?"  "Crucify  him!  Crucify  him!"  came  back 
from  the  infuriated  mob. 

Pilate  finally  resolved  to  do  their  bidding  and  obey 
their  will.  But  he  seems  to  have  secretly  cherished  the- 
hope  that  scourging,  which  was  the  usual  preliminary 
to  crucifixion,  might  be  made  to  satisfy  the  mob.  But 
this  hope  was  soon  dispelled;  and  he  found  himself 
compelled  to  yield  completely  to  their  wishes  by  de- 
livering the  prisoner  to  be  crucified.  Before  this  final 
step,  however,  which  was  an  insult  to  the  true  courage 
of  the  soul  and  an  outrage  upon  all  the  charities  of  the 
heart,  he  resolved  to  apply  a  soothing  salve  to  wounded 
conscience.  He  resolved  to  perform  a  ceremonial 
cleansing  act.  Calling  for  a  basin  of  water,  he  washed 
his  hands  before  the  multitude,  saying:  "I  am  innocent 
of  the  blood  of  this  just  person:  see  ye  to  it."  ^ 

This  was  a  simple,  impressive,  theatrical  act;  but 
little,  mean,  contemptible,  cowardly.  He  washed  his 
hands  when  he  should  have  used  them.  He  should 
have  used  them  as  Brutus  or  Gracchus  or  Pompeius 

1  Matt,  xxvii.  24. 


138  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Magnus  would  have  done,  in  pointing  his  legion  to  the 
field  of  duty  and  of  glory.  He  should  have  used  them 
as  Bonaparte  did  when  he  put  down  the  mob  in  the 
streets  of  Paris.  But  he  was  too  craven  and  cowardly; 
and  herein  is  to  be  found  the  true  meaning  of  the  char- 
acter and  conduct  of  Pilate.  He  believed  that  Jesus 
was  innocent;  and  that  the  accusations  against  Him 
were  inspired  by  the  envy  of  His  countrymen.  He  had 
declared  to  the  Jews  in  an  emphatic  verdict  of  acquit- 
tal that  he  found  in  Him  no  fault  at  all.  And  yet  this 
very  sentence,  "  I  find  in  him  no  fault  at  all,"  was  the 
beginning  of  that  course  of  cowardly  and  criminal 
vacillation  which  finally  sent  Jesus  to  the  cross.  "  Yet 
was  this  utterance,"  says  Innes,  "  as  it  turned  out,  only 
the  first  step  in  that  downward  course  of  weakness  the 
world  knows  so  well:  a  course  which,  beginning  with 
indecision  and  complaisance,  passed  through  all  the 
phases  of  alternate  bluster  and  subserviency;  persua- 
sion, evasion,  protest,  and  compromise;  superstitious 
dread,  conscientious  reluctance,  cautious  duplicity,  and 
sheer  moral  cowardice  at  last;  until  this  Roman  re- 
mains photographed  forever  as  the  perfect  feature  of 
the  unjust  judge,  deciding  '  against  his  better  knowl- 
edge, not  deceived.'  " 

"Then  released  he  Barabbas  unto  them:  and  when 
he  had  scourged  Jesus,  he  delivered  him  to  be  cruci- 
fied. Then  the  soldiers  of  the  governor  took  Jesus  into 
the  common  hall,  and  gathered  unto  him  the  whole 
band  of  soldiers.  And  they  stripped  him,  and  put  on 
him  a  scarlet  robe.  And  when  they  had  platted  a 
crown  of  thorns,  they  put  it  upon  his  head,  and  a  reed 


JESUS   AGAIN,  BEFORE    PILATE  139 

in  his  right  hand:  And  they  bowed  the  knee  before 
him,  and  mocked  him,  saying,  Hail,  King  of  the  Jews! 
And  they  spit  upon  him,  and  took  the  reed,  and  smote 
him  on  the  head.  And  after  that  they  had  mocked 
him,  they  took  the  robe  ofif  from  him,  and  put  his  own 
raiment  on  him,  and  led  him  away  to  crucify  him."  ^ 
Thus  ended  the  most  memorable  act  of  injustice  re- 
corded in  history.  At  every  stage  of  the  trial,  whether 
before  Caiaphas  or  Pilate,  the  prisoner  conducted 
Himself  with  that  commanding  dignity  and  majesty  so 
well  worthy  of  His  origin,  mission,  and  destiny.  His 
sublime  deportment  at  times  caused  His  judges  to 
marvel  greatly.  And  through  it  all,  He  stood  alone. 
Plis  friends  and  followers  had  deserted  Him  in  His 
hour  of  greatest  need.  Single-handed  and  unaided, 
the  Galilean  peasant  had  bared  His  breast  and  brow 
to  the  combined  authority,  to  the  insults  and  outrages, 
of  both  Jerusalem  and  Rome.  ''  Not  a  single  discord- 
ant voice  was  raised  amidst  the  tumultuous  clamour: 
not  a  word  of  protest  disturbed  the  mighty  concord  of 
anger  and  reviling;  not  the  faintest  echo  of  the  late 
hosannas,  which  had  wrung  with  wonder,  fervour,  and 
devotion,  and  which  had  surrounded  and  exalted  to  the 
highest  pitch  of  triumph  the  bearer  of  good  tidings  on 
his  entry  into  the  Holy  City.  Where  were  the  throngs 
of  the  hopeful  and  believing,  who  had  followed  His 
beckoning  as  a  finger  pointing  toward  the  breaking 
dawn  of  truth  and  regeneration?  Where  were  they, 
what  thinking  and  why  silent?  The  bands  of  the  hum- 
ble and  poor,  of  the  afflicted  and  outcast  who  had  en- 

1  Matt,  xxvii.  26-31. 


I40  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

trusted  to  His  controlling  grace  the  salvation  of  soul 
and  body — where  were  they,  what  thinking  and  why 
silent?  The  troops  of  women  and  youths,  who  had 
drawn  fresh  strength  from  the  spell  of  a  glance  or  a 
word  from  the  Father  of  all  that  liveth — where  were 
they,  what  thinking  and  why  silent?  And  the  multi- 
tudes of  disciples  and  enthusiasts  who  had  scattered 
sweet-scented  boughs  and  joyous  utterances  along  the 
road  to  Sion,  blessing  Him  that  came  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord — where  were  they,  what  thinking  and  why 
silent?  Not  a  remembrance,  not  a  sign,  not  a  word  of 
the  great  glory  so  lately  His.    Jesus  was  alone." 


CHAPTER   XI 

LEGAL  ANALYSIS  AND  SUMMARY  OF  THE  ROMAN  TRIAL 

OF  JESUS 


N  the  preceding  pages  of  this 
volume  we  have  considered  the 
elements  of  both  Law  and  Fact 
as  related  to  the  Roman  trial  of 
Jesus.  Involved  in  this  consid- 
eration v/ere  the  powers  and  du- 
ties of  Pilate  as  procurator  of 
Judea  and  as  presiding  judge  at 
the  trial;  general  principles  of 
Roman  provincial  administration  at  the  time  of  Christ; 
the  legal  and  political  status  of  the  subject  Jew  in  his 
relationship  to  the  conquering  Roman;  the  exact  re- 
quirements of  criminal  procedure  in  Roman  capital 
trials  at  Rome  and  in  the  provinces  at  the  date  of  the 
crucifixion;  the  Roman  law  applicable  to  the  trial  of 
Jesus;  and  the  facts  of  said  trial  before  Pilate  and 
Herod, 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  analyze  the  case  from 
the  view  point  of  the  juristic  agreement  or  nonagree- 
ment  of  Law  and  Fact;  and  to  determine  by  a  process 
of  judicial  dissection  and  re-formation,  the  presence  or 
absence  of  essential  legal  elements  in  the  proceedings. 
We  have  learned  what  should  have  been  done  by  Pilate 

acting  as  a  Roman  judge  in  a  criminal  matter  involv- 

141 


142  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

ing  the  life  of  a  prisoner.  We  have  also  ascertained 
what  he  actually  did.  We  are  thus  enabled  to  compare 
the  requirements  with  the  actualities  of  the  case; 
and  to  ascertain  the  resemblances  in  the  proceedings 
against  Jesus  to  a  legally  conducted  trial  under  Roman 
law. 

But,  in  making  this  summary  and  analysis,  a  most 
important  consideration  must  be  constantly  held  in 
mind:  that,  in  matters  of  review  on  appeal,  errors  will 
not  be  presumed;  that  is,  errors  will  not  be  considered 
that  do  not  appear  affirmatively  upon  the  record.  The 
law  will  rather  presume  and  the  court  will  assume  that 
what  should  have  been  done,  was  done.  In  conformity 
with  this  principle,  the  presumption  must  be  indulged 
that  Pilate  acted  in  strict  obedience  to  the  require- 
ments of  Roman  law  in  trying  Jesus,  unless  the  Gospels 
of  the  New  Testament,  which  constitute  the  record  in 
the  case,  either  affirmatively  or  by  reasonable  infer- 
ence, disclose  the  absence  of  such  obedience.  A  failure 
to  note  this  presumption  and  to  keep  this  principle  in 
mind,  has  caused  many  writers  upon  this  subject  to 
make  erroneous  statements  concerning  the  merits  and 
legal  aspects  of  the  trial  of  Christ. 

Laymen  frequently  assert  the  essential  principle  of 
this  presumption  without  seeming  to  be  aware  of  it. 
Both  Keim  and  Geikie  declare  that  assessors  or  assist- 
ants were  associated  with  Pilate  in  the  trial  of  Jesus. 
The  Gospel  records  nowhere  even  intimate  such  a 
thing;  and  no  other  original  records  are  in  existence  to 
furnish  such  information.  And  yet  one  of  the  most 
celebrated  of  the  biblical  critics,  Dr.  Theodor  Keim, 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL    143 

writing  on  the  trial  of  Christ  by  Pilate,  says:  "  Beside 
him,  upon  benches,  were  the  council  or  the  assessors  of 
the  court,  sub-officials,  friends,  Roman  citizens,  whose 
presence  could  not  be  dispensed  with,  and  who  were 
not  wanting  to  the  procurators  of  Judea,  although  our 
reports  do  not  mention  them."  ^  To  the  same  efifect. 
Dr.  Cunningham  Geikie  thus  writes:  "The  assessors 
of  the  court — Roman  citizens — who  acted  as  nominal 
members  of  the  judicial  bench,  sit  beside  Pilate — for 
Roman  law  required  their  presence."  " 

These  statements  of  the  renowned  writers  just 
quoted  are  justified  not  only  on  the  ground  of  logical 
historical  inference,  but  also  on  the  principle  of  actual 
legal  presumption.  The  closest  scrutiny  of  the  New 
Testament  narratives  nowhere  discovers  even  an  inti- 
mation that  a  bench  of  judges  helped  Pilate  to  conduct 
the  trial  of  Jesus.  And  yet,  as  Geikie  says,  "  Roman 
law  required  their  presence,"  and  the  legal  presump- 
tion is  that  they  were  in  and  about  the  Praetorium 
ready  to  lend  assistance,  and  that  they  actually  took 
part  in  the  proceedings.  This  inference  is  strength- 
ened by  the  fact  that  Pilate,  after  he  had  learned  the 
nature  of  the  accusation  against  Jesus,  called  Him  into 
the  palace  to  examine  Him.  Why  did  Pilate  do  this? 
Why  did  he  not  examine  the  prisoner  in  the  presence 
of  His  accusers  in  the  open  air?  Geikie  tells  us  that 
there  was  a  judgment  hall  in  the  palace  in  which  trials 
were  usually  conducted.^    Is  it  not  possible,  nay  proba- 

^  Keim,  "Jesus  of  Nazara,  vol.  vi.  p.  87. 

2  Geikie,  "The  Life  and  Words  of  Christ,"  vol.  ii.  p.  533. 

^  Geikie,  "The  Life  and  Words  of  Christ,"  vol.  ii.  p.  532. 


144  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

ble,  that  the  assessors  and  Pilate  were  assembled  at  an 
early  hour  in  this  hall  to  hear  the  usual  criminal 
charges  of  the  day,  or,  perhaps,  to  try  the  accusation 
against  Jesus,  of  whose  appearance  before  them  they 
had  been  previously  notified;  and  that,  when  the  gov- 
ernor heard  that  the  religious  scruples  of  the  Jews 
would  not  permit  them  to  enter  the  judgment  hall  dur- 
ing the  Passover  feast,  he  went  out  alone  to  hear  the 
accusation  against  the  prisoner;  and  that  he  then  re- 
turned with  the  accused  into  the  hall  where  the  bench 
of  judges  were  awaiting  him,  to  lay  before  them  the 
charges  and  to  further  examine  the  case?  It  is  ad- 
mitted that  this  theory  and  the  statement  of  Geikie  that 
there  was  a  hall  in  the  palace  where  trials  were  gener- 
ally held,  are  seemingly  refuted  by  the  fact  that  Roman 
trials  vvcre  almost  always  conducted  in  the  open  air. 
But  this  was  not  invariably  true;  and  the  case  of  Pilate 
and  his  court  might  have  been  an  exception. 

It  has  been  sought  to  lay  particular  stress  upon  the 
doctrine  of  legal  presumption  that  what  should  have 
been  done,  was  done,  unless  the  record  affirmatively 
negatives  the  fact,  because  it  is  impossible  to  appreciate 
fully  the  legal  aspects  of  the  trial  of  Jesus,  unless  this 
doctrine  is  understood  and  kept  constantly  in  view. 

A  casual  perusal  of  the  New  Testament  narratives 
leaves  the  impression  upon  the  mind  of  the  reader  that 
the  proceedings  against  Jesus  before  Pilate  were  ex- 
ceedingly irregular  and  lacking  in  all  the  essential  ele- 
ments of  a  regular  trial.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this 
impression  may  be  grounded  in  absolute  truth.  It  may 
be  that  the  action  of  Pilate  was  arbitrary  and  devoid 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL    145 

of  all  legal  forms.  This  possibility  is  strengthened  by 
the  consideration  that  Jesus  was  not  a  Roman  citizen 
and  could  not,  therefore,  demand  the  strict  observance 
of  forms  of  law  in  His  trial.  A  Jewish  provincial, 
when  accused  of  crime,  stood  before  a  Roman  governor 
with  no  other  rights  than  the  plea  of  justice  as  a  de- 
fense against  the  summary  exercise  of  absolute  power. 
In  other  words,  in  the  case  of  Jesus,  Pilate  was  not 
bound  to  observe  strictly  rules  of  criminal  procedure 
prescribed  by  Roman  law.  He  could,  if  he  saw  fit,  dis- 
pense with  forms  of  law  and  dispose  of  the  case  either 
equitably  or  as  his  whims  suggested.  Nor  was  there 
a  right  of  appeal  in  such  a  case,  from  the  judgment  of 
the  procurator  to  the  emperor  at  Rome.  The  decision 
of  the  governor  against  a  provincial  -was  final.  The 
case  of  Paul  before  Felix  and  before  Festus  was  en- 
tirely dififerent.  Paul  was  a  Roman  citizen  and,  as 
such,  was  entitled  to  all  the  rights  involved  in  Roman 
citizenship,  which  included  the  privilege  of  an  appeal 
to  Caesar  against  the  judgment  of  a  provincial  officer; 
and  he  actually  exercised  this  right.*  It  was  incum- 
bent, therefore,  upon  Roman  officials  to  observe  due 
forms  of  law  in  proceeding  against  him.  And  St. 
Luke,  in  Acts  xxiv.,  indicates  the  almost  exact  pre- 
cision and  formality  of  a  Roman  trial,  in  the  case  of 
Paul. 

But  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  not  a  Roman  citizen  does 
not  prove  that  due  forms  of  law  were  not  observed  in 
His  trial.  It  is  hardly  probable,  as  before  observed, 
that  despotism  and  caprice  were  tolerated  at  any  time, 

^  Acts  xxiv.;  XXV.  li;  xxvi.  32. 


146  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

in  any  part  of  the  Roman  world.  And,  besides,  Roman 
history  and  jurisprudence  are  replete  with  illustrations 
of  complete  legal  protection  extended  by  Roman  offi- 
cials to  the  non-Roman  citizens  of  subject  states.  It 
is,  moreover,  a  legitimate  and  almost  inevitable  infer- 
ence, drawn  from  the  very  nature  of  the  Roman  con- 
stitution and  from  the  peculiar  character  of  Roman 
judicial  administration,  that  no  human  life  belonging 
to  a  citizen  or  subject  of  Rome  would  be  permitted 
to  be  taken  without  due  process  of  law,  either  imperial 
or  local. 

In  forming  an  opinion  as  to  the  existence  or  non- 
existence of  a  regular  trial  of  Jesus  before  Pilate,  the 
meager  details  of  the  New  Testament  histories  must 
not  alone  be  relied  upon.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten 
that  the  Gospel  writers  were  not  lawyers  or  court  offi- 
cers reporting  a  case  to  be  reviewed  on  appeal.  They 
were  laymen  writing  a  general  account  of  a  judicial 
transaction.  And  the  omissions  in  their  narratives  are 
not  to  be  considered  as  either  discrepancies  or  false- 
hoods. They  simply  did  not  intend  to  tell  everything 
about  the  trial  of  Jesus;  and  the  fact  that  they  do  not 
record  the  successive  steps  of  a  regular  trial  does  not 
mean  that  these  steps  were  not  observed. 

It  is  respectfully  submitted  that  if  a  modern  layman 
should  write  a  newspaper  or  book  account  of  one  of  the 
great  criminal  trials  of  this  century,  with  no  intention 
of  making  it  a  strictly  judicial  report,  this  account 
would  not  reveal  the  presence  of  more  essential  legal 
elements  than  are  disclosed  by  the  reports  of  the  Evan- 
gelists of  the  proceedings  against  Jesus. 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     147 

The  majority  of  writers  on  the  subject  express  the 
opinion  that  the  appearance  of  the  Christ  before  the 
Roman  governor  was  nothing  more  than  a  short  hear- 
ing in  which  a  few  questions  were  asked  and  answers 
made;  that  the  proceedings  were  exceedingly  brief  and 
informal;  and  that  the  emergencies  of  the  case  rather 
than  forms  of  law  guided  the  judgment  and  controlled 
the  conduct  of  Pilate.  As  a  layman,  the  author  of  these 
volumes  would  take  the  same  view.  But  as  a  lawyer, 
treating  the  subject  in  a  judicial  manner,  and  bound  by 
legal  rules,  regulations,  and  presumptions,  in  review- 
ing the  merits  of  the  case,  he  feels  constrained  to  dis- 
sent from  the  prevalent  opinion  and  to  declare  that 
the  New  Testament  records,  though  meager  in  details, 
exhibit  all  the  essential  elements  of  an  ordinary  crimi- 
nal trial,  whether  conducted  in  ancient  or  modern 
times.  He  further  asserts  that  if  the  affirmative  state- 
ments of  the  Evangelists  that  certain  things  were  done 
be  supplemented  by  the  legal  presumption  that  still 
other  things  were  done  because  they  should  have  been 
done,  and  because  the  record  does  not  affirmatively  de- 
clare that  they  were  not  done,  an  almost  perfect  judi- 
cial proceeding  can  be  developed  from  the  Gospel 
reports  of  the  trial  of  Jesus  before  Pilate.  These  re- 
ports disclose  the  following  essential  elements  of  all 
ancient  and  modern  criminal  trials; 

I.  The  Indictment,  or  Nominis  Delatio. 

"  What    accusation    bring    ye    against    this 

man?" 
"  And  they  began  to  accuse  him,  saying,  We 


148  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

found  this  fellow  perverting  the  nation, 
and  forbidding  to  give  tribute  to  Caesar, 
saying  that  he  himself  is  Christ  a  King." 

2.  The  Examination,  or  Interrogatio. 

"  Art  thou  the  King  of  the  Jews?  " 
"  Art  thou  a  King  then?  " 

3.  The  Defense,  or  Excusatto. 

"My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world:  if  my 
kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then  would 
my  servants  fight,  that  I  should  not  be  de- 
livered to  the  Jews:  but  now  is  my  king- 
dom not  from  hence.  .  .  .  To  this  end 
was  I  born  and  for  this  cause  came  I  into 
the  world,  that  I  should  bear  witness  unto 
the  truth.  Everyone  that  is  of  the  truth 
heareth  my  voice." 

4.  The  Acquittal,  or  Absolutio. 

"  I  find  in  him  no  fault  at  all." 

Here  we  have  clearly  presented  the  essential  fea- 
tures of  a  criminal  trial:  the  Indictment,  the  Exam- 
ination of  the  charge,  the  Defense,  and  the  Judg- 
ment of  the  tribunal,  which,  in  this  case,  was  an 
Acquittal. 

To  demonstrate  that  Pilate  intended  to  conduct  the 
proceedings  against  Jesus  seriously  and  judicially,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  trial,  let  us  briefly  review  the  cir- 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     149 

cumstances  attendant  upon  the  successive  steps  just 
enumerated.  And  to  this  end,  let  us  proceed  in 
order: 

I.  The  Indictment,  or  Nominis  Delatio. 

When  Pilate  had  seated  himself  in  the  ivory  curule 
chair  of  the  procurator  of  Judea,  at  an  early  hour  on 
Friday  morning,  the  day  of  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus,  a 
Jerusalem  mob,  led  by  the  Sanhedrin,  confronted  him 
with  the  prisoner.  His  first  recorded  words  are: 
"  What  accusation  bring  ye  against  this  man?  "  As 
before  suggested,  this  question  is  very  keenly  indicative 
of  the  presence  of  the  judge  and  of  the  beginning  of  a 
solemn  judicial  proceeding.  Every  word  rings  with 
Roman  authority  and  strongly  suggests  administrative 
action. 

The  accusing  priests  sought  to  evade  this  question 
by  answering:  "  If  he  were  not  a  malefactor,  we  would 
not  have  delivered  him  up  unto  thee." 

If  Pilate  had  adopted  the  Jewish  view  of  the  merits 
of  the  matter,  that  his  countersign  was  the  only  thing 
necessary  to  justify  the  final  condemnation  and  punish- 
ment of  the  prisoner;  or,  if  he  had  been  indifferent  to 
the  legal  aspects  of  the  case,  he  would  simply  have 
granted  their  request  at  once,  and  would  have  ordered 
the  prisoner  to  execution.  But  this  was  not  the  case; 
for  we  are  assured  that  he  insisted  on  knowing  the  na- 
ture of  the  accusation  before  he  would  assume  juris- 
diction of  the  affair.  The  mere  information  that  He 
was  a  "  malefactor  "  did  not  suffice.  The  conduct  of 
the  Roman  judge  clearly  indicated  that  accusation  was 


I50  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

a  more  important  element  of  Roman  criminal  proce- 
dure than  was  inquisition.  To  meet  the  emergency, 
the  Jews  were  compelled,  then,  to  make  the  formal 
charge,  that: 

"  We  found  this  fellow  perverting  the  nation,  and 
forbidding  to  give  tribute  to  Caesar,  saying  that  he 
himself  is  Christ  a  King." 

Here  we  have  presented  the  indictment,  the  first  step 
in  a  criminal  proceeding;  and  it  was  presented  not  vol- 
untarily, but  because  a  Roman  judge,  acting  judicially, 
demanded  and  forced  its  presentment. 

2.  The  Examination,  or  Interrogatio. 

Not  content  with  knowing  the  nature  of  the  charges 
against  the  prisoner,  Pilate  insisted  on  finding  out 
whether  they  were  true  or  not.  He  accordingly  took 
Jesus  inside  the  palace  and  interrogated  Him.  With 
true  judicial  tact,  he  brushed  aside  the  first  two  accu- 
sations as  unimportant,  and  came  with  pointed  direct- 
ness to  the  material  question: 

''  Art  thou  the  King  of  the  Jews?  " 

This  interrogation  bears  the  impress  of  a  judicial  in- 
quiry, touching  a  matter  involving  the  question  of  high 
treason,  the  charge  against  the  prisoner.  It  clearly  in- 
dicates a  legal  proceeding  in  progress.  And  when 
Jesus  made  reply  that  seemed  to  indicate  guilt,  the 
practiced  ear  of  the  Roman  judge  caught  the  sugges- 
tion of  a  criminal  confession,  and  he  asked  impa- 
tiently: 

"  Art  thou  a  King  then?" 

This  question  indicates  seriousness  and  a  resolution 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     151 

to  get  at  the  bottom  of  the  matter  with  a  view  to  a 
serious  judicial  determination  of  the  afifair. 

3.  The  Defense,  or  Excusatio. 

In  reply  to  the  question  of  the  judge,  the  prisoner 
answered : 

"  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world." 

This  language  indicates  that  Jesus  was  conscious  of 
the  solemnity  of  the  proceedings;  and  that  he  recog- 
nized the  right  of  Pilate  to  interrogate  Him  judicially. 
His  answer  seemed  to  say:  ''  I  recognize  your  author- 
ity in  matters  of  this  life  and  this  world.  If  my  claims 
to  kingship  were  temporal,  I  fully  appreciate  that  they 
would  be  treasonable;  and  that,  as  the  representative  of 
Caesar,  you  would  be  justified  in  delivering  me  to 
death.  But  my  pretensions  to  royalty  are  spiritual,  and 
this  places  the  matter  beyond  your  reach." 

The  defense  of  Jesus  was  in  the  nature  of  what  we 
call  in  modern  pleading  a  Confession  and  Avoidance: 
"  A  plea  which  admits,  in  words  or  in  efifect,  the  truth 
of  the  matter  contained  in  the  Declaration;  and  al- 
leges some  new  matter  to  avoid  the  efifect  of  it,  and 
shows  that  the  plaintifif  is,  notwithstanding,  not  entitled 
to  his  action," 

It  may  be  analyzed  thus: 

Confession:  Inside  the  palace,  Pilate  asked  Jesus 
the  question :  "  Art  thou  the  King  of  the  Jews?  "  Ac- 
cording to  St.  Matthew,  Jesus  answered:  "Thou 
sayest";^  according  to  St.  Mark:  "Thou  sayest 
it";^   according   to   St.    Luke:   "Thou   sayest   it";^ 

^  Matt,  xxvii.  II.  2  Mark  xv.  2.  ^  Luke  xxiii.  3. 


152  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

according  to  St.  John:  "Thou  sayest  that  1  am  a 
king."  ' 

All  these  replies  are  identical  in  signification,  and 
mean:  Thou  sayest  it,  because  I  am  really  a  king.  In 
other  words.  He  simply  confessed  that  He  was  a 
king.    Then  came  His  real  defense. 

Avoidance:  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world:  if 
my  kingdom  were  of  this  world,  then  would  my  serv- 
ants fight,  that  I  should  not  be  delivered  to  the  Jews: 
but  now  is  my  kingdom  not  from  hence.  .  .  .  To  this 
end  was  I  born  and  for  this  cause  came  I  into  the 
world,  that  I  should  bear  witness  of  the  truth.  Every- 
one that  is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice." 

After  having  confessed  claims  to  kingship,  and  hav- 
ing thereby  made  Himself  momentarily  liable  on  the 
charge  of  high  treason.  He  at  once  avoids  the  effect  of 
the  declaration  by  alleging  new  matter  which  ex- 
empted Him  from  the  operation  of  the  crimen  Lasce 
Majestatis.  He  boldly  declares  His  kingship,  but 
places  His  kingdom  beyond  the  skies  in  the  realm  of 
truth  and  spirit.  He  asserts  a  bold  antithesis  between 
the  Empire  of  Caesar  and  the  Kingdom  of  God.  He 
cheerfully  acknowledges  the  procuratorship  of  Pilate 
in  the  first,  but  fearlessly  proclaims  His  own  Messiah- 
ship  in  the  second. 

4.  The  Acquittal,  or  Absohitlo. 

It  is  more  than  probable  that  Pilate's  heathen  soul 
mocked  the  heavenly  claims  of  the  lowly  prisoner  in 
his  presence,  but  his  keenly  discerning  Roman  intellect 

'  John  xviii.  37. 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN   TRIAL     153 

marked  at  once  the  distinction  between  an  earthly  and 
a  heavenly  kingdom.  He  saw  clearly  that  their  boun- 
daries nowhere  conflicted,  and  that  treasonable  contact 
was  impossible.  He  judged  that  Jesus  was  simply  a 
gentle  enthusiast  whose  pretensions  were  harmless. 
Accordingly,  he  went  out  to  the  mob  and  pronounced 
a  verdict  of  "  not  guilty."  Solemnly  raising  his  hand, 
he  proclaimed  the  sentence  of  acquittal: 

"  I  find  in  him  no  fault  at  all." 

This  language  is  not  the  classical  legal  phraseology 
of  a  Roman  verdict  of  acquittal.  The  Latin  word  for 
a  single  ballot  was  absoho]  the  words  of  a  collective 
judgment  of  a  bench  of  judges  was  non  fecisse  videtur. 
The  language  of  St.  John,  though  that  of  a  layman,  is 
equally  as  effectual,  if  not  so  formal  and  judicial. 

More  than  any  other  feature  of  the  case,  the  verdict 
of  acquittal,  "  I  find  in  him  no  fault  at  all,"  indicates 
the  regularity  and  solemnity  of  a  judicial  proceeding. 
Standing  alone,  it  would  indicate  the  close  of  a  regular 
trial  in  which  a  court  having  jurisdiction  had  sat  in 
judgment  upon  the  life  or  liberty  of  an  alleged 
criminal. 

If  to  these  essential  elements  of  a  trial  which  the 
Gospel  records  affirmatively  disclose  be  added  other 
necessary  elements  of  a  regular  Roman  trial  which 
legal  presumption  supplies,  because  these  records  do 
not  deny  their  existence,  we  have  then  in  the  proceed- 
ings against  Jesus  all  the  important  features  of  Roman 
criminal  procedure  involving  the  question  of  life  or 
death.  That  several  essential  elements  are  absent  is 
evident  from  a  reasonable  construction  of  the  state- 


154  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

ments  of  the  Evangelists.  That  which  most  forcibly 
negatives  the  existence  of  a  regular  trial  was  the  pre- 
cipitancy with  which  the  proceedings  were  conducted 
before  Pilate.  We  have  seen  that  ten  days  were  al- 
lowed at  Rome  after  the  no  minis  receptio  to  secure  tes- 
timony and  prepare  the  case  before  the  beginning  of 
the  trial.  This  rule  was  certainly  not  observed  at  the 
trial  of  Jesus.  But  several  irregularities  which  are 
apparent  from  a  perusal  of  the  Gospel  histories  may 
be  explained  from  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  not  a 
Roman  citizen  and  was  not,  therefore,  entitled  to  a 
strict  observance  of  Roman  law  in  the  proceedings 
against  him. 

The  foregoing  analysis  and  summary  apply  only  to 
the  proceedings  of  the  first  appearance  of  Jesus  before 
Pilate.  It  was  at  this  time  that  the  real  Roman  trial 
took  place.  All  subsequent  proceedings  were  irregu- 
lar, tumultuous  and  absolutely  illegal.  The  examina- 
tion of  Jesus  by  Herod  cannot,  strictly  speaking,  be 
called  a  trial.  The  usual  explanation  of  the  sending 
of  the  prisoner  to  Herod  is  that  Pilate  learned  that  He 
was  a  native  and  citizen  of  Galilee;  and  that,  desiring 
to  rid  himself  of  an  embarrassing  subject,  he  deter- 
mined to  transfer  the  accused  from  the  forum  appre- 
hensionis  to  the  forum  originis  vel  domicilii.  It  has 
frequently  been  asserted  that  It  was  usual  in  Roman 
procedure  to  transfer  a  prisoner  from  the  place  of 
arrest  to  the  place  of  his  origin  or  residence.  There 
seems  to  be  no  authority  for  this  contention.  It  may 
or  may  not  have  been  true  as  a  general  proposition. 
But  it  was  certainly  not  true  in  the  case  of  the  transfer 


SUMMARY    OF   THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     155 

of  Jesus  to  Herod.  In  the  first  place,  when  Pilate  de- 
clared, *'  I  find  no  fault  in  him  at  all,"  a  verdict  of 
acquittal  was  pronounced,  and  the  case  was  ended. 
The  proceedings  had  taken  form  of  res  adjudicata,  and 
former  jeopardy  could  have  been  pleaded  in  bar  of 
further  prosecution.  It  might  be  differently  contended 
if  Pilate  had  discovered  that  Jesus  was  from  Galilee 
before  the  proceedings  before  him  were  closed.  But  it 
is  clear  from  St.  Luke,  who  alone  records  the  occur- 
rence of  the  sending  of  the  prisoner  to  Herod,  that  the 
case  was  closed  and  the  verdict  of  acquittal  had  been 
rendered  before  Pilate  discovered  the  identity  of  the 
accused.^  It  was  then  too  late  to  subject  a  prisoner  to 
a  second  trial  for  the  same  offense. 

Rosadi  denies  emphatically  that  Herod  had  juris- 
diction of  the  offense  charged  against  Jesus.  In  this 
connection,  he  says:  "His  prosecutors  insisted  tena- 
ciously upon  His  answering  to  a  charge  of  continuous 
sedition,  as  lawyers  call  it.  This  offence  had  been 
begun  in  Galilee  and  ended  in  Jerusalem — that  is  to 
say,  in  Judaea.  Now  it  was  a  rule  of  Roman  law, 
which  the  procurator  of  Rome  could  neither  fail  to 
recognize  nor  afford  to  neglect,  that  the  competence 
of  a  court  territorially  constituted  was  determined 
either  by  the  place  in  which  the  arrest  was  made,  or 
by  the  place  in  which  the  offence  was  committed. 
Jesus  had  been  arrested  at  the  gates  of  Jerusalem;  His 
alleged  offence  had  been  committed  for  the  most  part, 
and  as  far  as  all  the  final  acts  were  concerned,  in  the 
city  itself  and  in  other  localities  of  Judaea.    In  continu- 

^  Luke  xxiii.  4-16. 


156  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

ous  offences  competence  was  determined  by  the  place 
in  which  the  last  acts  going  to  constitute  the  offence 
had  been  committed.  Thus  no  justification  whatever 
existed  for  determining  the  court  with  regard  to  the 
prisoner's  origin.  But  this  investigation  upon  a  point 
of  Roman  law  is  to  all  intents  superfluous,  because 
either  Pilate,  when  he  thought  of  Herod,  intended  to 
strip  himself  of  his  inalienable  judicial  power,  and  in 
this  case  he  ought  to  have  respected  the  jurisdiction 
and  competence  of  the  Grand  Sanhedrin  and  not  to 
have  busied  himself  with  a  conflict  as  to  cognizance 
which  should  only  have  been  discussed  and  resolved 
by  the  Jewish  judicial  authorities;  or  else  he  had  no 
intention  of  abdicating  his  power,  and  in  this  case  he 
ought  never  to  have  raised  the  question  of  competence 
between  himself.  Governor  of  Judaea,  and  Herod, 
Regent  of  Galilee,  but  between  himself  and  the  Roman 
Vice-Governor  of  Galilee,  his  colleague,  if  there  had 
been  such  an  one.  It  is  only  between  judges  of  the 
same  judicial  hierarchy  that  a  dispute  as  to  territorial 
competence  can  arise.  Between  magistrates  of  differ- 
ent States  there  can  only  exist  a  contrast  of  power  and 
jurisdiction.  The  act  of  Pilate  cannot  then  be  inter- 
preted as  a  scruple  of  a  constitutional  character.  It  is 
but  a  miserable  escape  for  his  irresolution,  a  mere  en- 
deavour to  temporize." 

The  second  and  final  appearance  of  Jesus  before 
Pilate  bears  little  resemblance  to  a  regular  trial.  The 
characteristic  elements  of  an  ordinary  Roman  criminal 
proceeding  are  almost  wholly  wanting.  The  pusillani- 
mous cowardice  of  the  procurator  and  the  blind  fury 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     157 

of  the  mob  are  the  chief  component  parts.  A  sort  of 
wild  phantasmagoria  sweeps  through  the  multitude 
and  circles  round  the  tribunal  of  the  governor.  Pilate 
struggles  with  his  conscience,  and  seeks  safety  in  sub- 
terfuge. He  begins  by  declaring  to  the  assembled 
priests  and  elders  that  neither  he  nor  Herod  has  found 
any  fault  in  the  man;  and  then,  as  a  means  of  compro- 
mise and  conciliation,  makes  the  monstrous  proposal 
that  he  will  first  scourge  and  then  release  the  prisoner. 
This  infamous  proposal  is  rejected  by  the  mob.  The 
cowardly  procurator  then  adopts  another  mean  expe- 
dient as  a  way  of  escape.  He  offers  to  deliver  Jesus  to 
them  as  a  Passover  gift.  Him  they  refuse  and  Barab- 
bas,  the  robber,  is  demanded.  Pilate's  terror  is  inten- 
sified by  superstitious  dread,  when  the  mob  begins  to 
cry:  "  He  made  himself  the  Son  of  God!  "  From  out 
the  anguish  of  his  soul,  the  voice  of  Justice  sends  to 
his  quivering  lips  the  thrice-repeated  question :  "  Why, 
what  evil  hath  he  done?  "  The  mob  continues  to  cry: 
*'  Crucify  him!    Crucify  him!  " 

And  as  a  final  assault  upon  his  conscience  and  his 
courage,  the  hypocritical  priests  warn  him  that  he 
must  not  release  a  pretender  to  kingship,  for  such  a 
man  is  an  enemy  to  Caesar.  The  doom  of  the  Nazarene 
is  sealed  by  this  last  maneuver  of  the  rabble.  Then,  as 
a  propitiation  to  the  great  God  of  truth  and  justice, 
and  as  balm  to  his  hurt  and  wounded  conscience,  he 
washes  his  hands  in  front  of  them  and  exclaims:  "  I 
am  innocent  of  the  blood  of  this  just  person:  see  ye 
to  it." 

The  crucifixion  followed  Pilate's  final  determina- 


158  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

tion;  and  thus  ended  the  most  famous  trial  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  world.  It  began  with  the  arrest  of  Jesus 
in  Gethsemane  at  midnight,  and  ended  with  His  cru- 
cifixion on  Golgotha  on  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day. 
As  we  have  seen,  it  was  a  double  trial,  conducted 
within  the  jurisdictions  of  the  two  most  famous  systems 
of  jurisprudence  known  to  mankind.  In  both  trials, 
substantially  the  right  issue  was  raised.  Before  the 
Sanhedrin,  the  prisoner  was  charged  with  blasphemy 
and  convicted.  Regarding  Jesus  as  a  mere  man,  a 
plain  Jewish  citizen,  this  judgment  was  "  substan- 
tially right  in  point  of  law  " ;  but  was  unjust  and  out- 
rageous because  forms  of  criminal  procedure  which 
every  Jewish  prisoner  was  entitled  to  have  observed, 
were  completely  ignored. 

The  proceedings  before  Pilate,  we  have  reason  to 
believe,  were  conducted,  in  a  general  way,  with  due. 
regard  to  forms  of  law.  But  the  result  was  judicial 
murder,  because  the  judge,  after  having  acquitted 
Jesus,  delivered  Him  to  be  crucified.  "  I  find  in  him 
no  fault  at  all  "  was  the  verdict  of  Pilate.  But  this 
just  and  righteous  sentence  was  destroyed  and  obliter- 
ated by  the  following:  ''And  they  were  instant  with 
loud  voices,  requiring  that  he  might  be  crucified.  And 
the  voices  of  them  and  of  the  chief  priests  prevailed. 
And  Pilate  gave  sentence  that  it  should  be  as  they 
required."  ^ 

A  horrible  travesty  on  justice,  this!  ^^Absolvo^^ 
and  '*  Ibis  ad  crucem^^^  in  the  same  breath,  were  the 
final  utterances  of  a  Roman  judge  administering  Ro- 

^  Luke  xxiii.  23,  24. 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     159 

man  law  in  the  most  memorable  judicial  transaction 
known  to  men. 

The  treatment  of  this  great  theme  would  be  incom- 
plete and  unsatisfactory  unless  reference  were  made  to 
the  peculiar  views  of  some  who  believe  that  political 
rather  than  legal  considerations  should  govern  in  de- 
termining the  justice  or  the  injustice  of  the  proceedings 
against  Jesus  before  Pilate.  A  certain  class  of  critics 
insist  on  regarding  the  Roman  governor  in  the  light 
of  an  administrator  rather  than  a  judge,  and  contend 
that  the  justice  of  his  conduct  and  the  righteousness  of 
his  motives  should  be  tested  by  principles  of  public 
policy  rather  than  by  strict  legal  rules.  It  is  insisted 
by  such  persons  that  various  considerations  support 
this  contention.  It  is  pointed  out  that  Pilate  exercised 
the  unlimited  jurisdiction  of  the  military  imperium, 
and  was  not,  therefore,  strictly  bound  by  legal  rules; 
that  Jesus  was  not  a  Roman  citizen,  and,  for  this  rea- 
son, was  not  entitled  to  the  strict  observance  of  forms 
of  law;  and  that  the  stubborn,  rebellious  and  turbulent 
temper  of  the  Jewish  people  required  the  strong  hand 
of  a  military  governor,  enforcing  political  obedience 
by  drastic  measures,  rather  than  the  action  of  a  judge 
punctiliously  applying  rules  of  law.  These  peculiar 
views  subject  the  conduct  of  Pilate  to  the  pressure 
of  public  necessity  rather  than  to  the  test  of  private 
right,  and  insist  that  sympathy  rather  than  censure 
should  hold  the  scales  in  which  his  deeds  are 
weighed. 

This  view  of  the  case  was  presented  in  the  last  gen- 
eration by  Sir  James  Fitz-Tames  Stephen  in  a  book  of 


i6o  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

extraordinary  strength  and  brilliancy  entitled  "  Lib- 
erty, Equality,  Fraternity."  It  was  written  in  answer 
to  John  Stuart  Mill,  and  is,  without  doubt,  the  most 
powerful  assault  in  the  English  language  on  what  men 
have  been  pleased  to  call  in  modern  times  "  liberty  of 
conscience."  In  his  letters  and  essays,  Mr.  Mill,  ac- 
cording to  the  interpretation  of  Mr.  Stephen,  "  con- 
demns absolutely  all  interference  with  the  expression 
of  opinion."  When  tried  by  this  standard,  the  Athe- 
nian dicasts,  who  condemned  Socrates;  Marcus  Aure- 
lius,  who  persecuted  the  Christians;  Pontius  Pilate, 
who  crucified  Jesus;  and  Philip  II,  who  sanctioned  the 
tortures  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  were  simply  viola- 
tors of  rights  of  personal  opinion  and  of  freedom  of 
conscience.  If  you  deny  the  right  of  liberty  of  con- 
science, Mr.  Mill  contends,  you  must  not  censure 
Marcus  Aurelius  and  other  persecutors  of  Christianity. 
On  the  contrary,  you  must  approve  such  persecution; 
and  you  must  go  further,  and  find  "  a  principle  which 
would  justify  Pontius  Pilate."  This  challenge  was 
boldly  accepted  by  Mr.  Stephen,  who  says: 

"  Was  Pilate  right  in  crucifying  Christ?  I  reply, 
Pilate's  paramount  duty  was  to  preserve  the  peace  in 
Palestine,  to  form  the  best  judgment  he  could  as  to  the 
means  required  for  that  purpose,  and  to  act  upon  it 
when  it  was  formed.  Therefore,  if  and  in  so  far  as  he 
believed  in  good  faith  and  on  reasonable  grounds  that 
what  he  did  was  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the 
peace  of  Palestine,  he  was  right.  It  was  his  duty  to 
run  the  risk  of  being  mistaken,  notwithstanding  Mr. 
Mill's  principle  as  to  liberty.     He  was  in  the  position 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     i6i 

of  a  judge  whose  duty  it  is  to  try  persons  duly  brought 
before  him  for  trial  at  the  risk  of  error."  ^ 

This  contention  is  founded  upon  the  inexorable  doc- 
trine that  what  is,  is  right;  that  revolution,  though 
righteous,  must  be  nipped  in  the  bud  and  destroyed; 
and  that  rights  of  private  conscience  must  not  be  tol- 
erated if  they  tend  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  com- 
munity at  large.  The  inevitable  logic  of  the  theory  of 
Mr.  Stephen  is  that  the  established  order  of  things  in 
Palestine  under  Roman  rule  was  right,  and  that  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  Roman  governor  to  regard  all  attempts 
at  innovation  or  revolution  in  religion  or  government 
as  a  breach  of  the  peace  which  was  to  be  promptly  sup- 
pressed by  vigorous  measures.  There  is  undoubtedly 
a  certain  amount  of  truth  in  this  contention,  in  so  far 
as  it  implies  that  under  a  just  and  orderly  plan  of  gov- 
ernment, the  rights  of  the  commonwealth  to  peace  and 
security  are  greater  than  the  claims  of  the  individual 
to  liberty  of  conscience  which  conflict  with  and  tend 
to  destroy  those  rights.  It  is  a  truth,  at  once  sovereign 
and  fundamental,  in  both  law  and  government,  that 
the  rights  of  the  collective  body  are  greater  than  those 
of  any  individual  member;  and  that  when  the  rights 
of  the  whole  and  those  of  a  part  of  the  body  politic 
conflict,  the  rights  of  the  part  must  yield  and,  if  neces- 
sity requires  it,  be  destroyed.  Upon  no  other  basis  can 
the  doctrine  of  majorities  in  politics  and  the  right  of 
Eminent  Domain  in  law,  rest.  But  the  application  of 
the  principles  involved  in  this  theory  must  always  be 
made  with  proper  limitations,  and  with  a  due  regard 

1  "Liberty,  Equality,  Fraternity,"  p.  87. 


1 62  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

to  the  rights  of  minorities  and  individuals;  else  gov- 
ernment becomes  an  engine  of  despotism  instead  of  an 
expression  of  political  freedom.  A  claim  of  privilege 
which  every  member  of  the  community  has  a  right  to 
make,  must  be  respected  by  the  collective  body;  other- 
wise, a  common  right  has  been  violated  and  destroyed. 
The  complete  recognition  of  this  principle  is  impera- 
tive and  fundamental,  and  is  the  corner  stone  of  politi- 
cal freedom  in  free  institutions  among  men. 

But  the  trouble  with  the  contention  of  Mr.  Stephen 
is  that  it  proceeds  upon  a  wrong  hypothesis.  He  in- 
timates that  Pilate  might  have  "  believed  in  good 
faith  that  what  he  did  was  necessary  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  peace  of  Palestine."  This  is  a  purely  gra- 
tuitous and  unhistorical  suggestion.  The  Gospel  rec- 
ords nowhere  justify  such  an  assumption.  The  very 
opposite  is  taught  by  these  sacred  writings.  It  is  true 
that  Caiaphas  contended  that  it  was  expedient  that  one 
man  should  die  rather  than  that  the  whole  nation  should 
perish.  But  this  was  a  Jewish,  not  a  Roman  opinion. 
The  Evangelical  narratives  are  unanimous  in  declar- 
ing that  Pilate  believed  Jesus  to  be  innocent  and  that 
"  for  envy  "  He  had  been  accused  by  His  countrymen. 

It  is  cheerfully  conceded  that  occasions  may  present 
themselves,  in  the  tumult  and  frenzy  of  revolution, 
when  the  responsible  authorities  of  government  may 
put  to  death  a  person  whose  intentions  are  innocent, 
but  whose  acts  are  incentives  to  riot  and  bloodshed. 
This  may  be  done  upon  the  principle  of  self-preserva- 
tion, which  is  the  first  law  of  government  as  well  as  of 
nature.     But  no  such  necessity  arose  in   the  case  of 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     163 

Jesus;  and  no  such  motives  are  ascribed  by  the  Evan- 
gelists to  Pilate.  They  very  clearly  inform  us  that  the 
action  of  the  Roman  governor  in  delivering  the  pris- 
oner to  be  crucified  was  prompted  by  private  and  not 
public  considerations.  He  had  no  fears  that  Jesus 
would  precipitate  a  revolution  dangerous  to  the  Ro- 
man state.  He  simply  wished  to  quiet  the  mob  and 
retain  his  position  as  procurator  of  Judea.  The  facts 
of  history,  then,  do  not  support  the  contention  of  Mr. 
Stephen. 

Continuing,  in  another  place,  the  same  eminent 
writer  says:  "  The  point  to  which  I  wish  to  direct  at- 
tention is  that  Pilate's  duty  was  to  maintain  peace  and 
order  in  Judea  and  to  maintain  the  Roman  power.  It 
is  surely  impossible  to  contend  seriously  that  it  was  his 
duty,  or  that  it  could  be  the  duty  of  any  one  in  his  posi- 
tion, to  recognize  in  the  person  brought  to  his  judg- 
ment seat,  I  do  not  say  God  Incarnate,  but  the  teacher 
and  preacher  of  a  higher  form  of  morals  and  a  more 
enduring  form  of  social  order  than  that  of  which  he 
himself  was  the  representative.  To  a  man  in  Pilate's 
position  the  morals  and  the  social  order  which  he  rep- 
resents are  for  all  practical  purposes  final  and  absolute 
standards.  If,  in  order  to  evade  the  obvious  inference 
from  this,  it  is  said  that  Pilate  ought  to  have  respected 
the  principle  of  religious  liberty  as  propounded  by 
Mr.  Mill,  the  answer  is  that  if  he  had  done  so  he  would 
have  run  the  risk  of  setting  the  whole  province  in  a 
blaze.  It  is  only  in  very  modern  times,  and  under  the 
influence  of  modern  sophisms,  that  belief  and  action 
have  come  to  be  so  much  separated  in  these  parts  of 


i64  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

the  world  that  the  distinction  between  the  temporal 
and  spiritual  department  of  affairs  even  appears  to  be 
tenable;  but  this  is  a  point  for  future  discussion. 

"  If  this  should  appear  harsh,  I  would  appeal  again 
to  Indian  experience.  Suppose  that  some  great  religious 
reformer — say,  for  instance,  some  one  claiming  to  be  the 
Guru  of  the  Sikhs,  or  the  Imam  in  whose  advent  many 
Mahommedans  devoutly  believe — were  to  make  his 
appearance  in  the  Punjab  or  the  North-West  Prov- 
inces. Suppose  that  there  was  good  reason  to  believe 
— and  nothing  is  more  probable — that  whatever  might 
be  the  preacher's  own  personal  intentions,  his  preach- 
ing was  calculated  to  disturb  the  public  peace  and  pro- 
duce mutiny  and  rebellion:  and  suppose  further 
(though  the  supposition  is  one  which  it  is  hardly  pos- 
sible to  make  even  in  imagination),  that  a  British 
officer,  instead  of  doing  whatever  might  be  necessary, 
or  executing  whatever  orders  he  might  receive,  for  the 
maintenance  of  British  authority,  were  to  consider 
whether  he  ought  not  to  become  a  disciple  of  the  Guru 
or  Imam.  What  course  would  be  taken  towards  him? 
He  would  be  instantly  dismissed  with  ignominy  from 
the  service  which  he  would  disgrace,  and  if  he  acted 
up  to  his  convictions,  and  preferred  his  religion  to  his 
Queen  and  country,  he  would  be  hanged  as  a  rebel  and 
a  traitor."  ^ 

These  theories  and  illustrations  are  not  only  plausi- 
ble but  entirely  reasonable  when  viewed  in  the  light 
of  the  facts  which  they  assume  to  be  true.  But  here 
again,  we  must  insist  that  they  do  not  harmonize  with 

^  "Liberty,  Equality,  Fraternity,"  pp.  93-95. 


SUMMARY    OF   THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     165 

the  actual  facts  of  the  case  to  which  they  are  intended 
to  apply.  In  the  extract  above  quoted,  three  supposi- 
tions are  suggested.  The  first  one  is  immaterial.  Let 
us  analyze  the  other  two  in  the  light  of  the  Gospel  his- 
tories. The  second  supposition  is  this:  "  Suppose  that 
there  was  good  reason  to  believe — and  nothing  is  more 
probable — that  whatever  might  be  the  preacher's  own 
personal  intentions,  his  preaching  was  calculated  to 
disturb  the  public  peace  and  produce  mutiny  and  re- 
bellion." What  passage  of  Scripture,  it  may  be  asked, 
justifies  this  parallel  with  the  case  of  Jesus  before  Pi- 
late? There  is,  in  fact,  absolutely  none.  The  nearest 
approach  to  one  is  Matthew  xxvii.  24:  "When 
Pilate  saw  that  he  could  prevail  nothing,  but  that 
rather  a  tumult  was  made,  he  took  water,  and  washed 
his  hands  before  the  multitude,  saying,  I  am  innocent 
of  the  blood  of  this  just  person:  see  ye  to  it."  The 
"  tumult "  here  referred  to  means  nothing  more  than 
the  manifestation  of  agitated  feelings  on  the  part  of 
the  mob,  who  were  enraged  at  the  prospect  of  an  ac- 
quittal by  the  governor.  It  does  not  remotely  refer  to 
the  danger  of  a  popular  rebellion  which  might  en- 
danger the  security  and  safety  of  Rome.  To  admit 
this  supposition  would  be  to  elevate  the  motives  of 
Pilate  in  consenting  to  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  to  the 
level  of  solicitude  for  the  welfare  of  his  country. 
This  would  not  be  justified  by  the  record,  which 
clearly  reveals  that  Pilate  was  moved  by  personal  self- 
ishness rather  than  by  a  sense  of  oflicial  duty. 

The  third  and  last  supposition  above  mentioned  Is 
this:  "And  suppose,  further  (though  the  supposition 


i66  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

is  one  which  it  is  hardly  possible  to  make  even  in  im- 
agination), that  a  British  officer,  instead  of  doing 
whatever  might  be  necessary,  or  executing  whatever 
orders  he  might  receive,  for  the  maintenance  of  British 
authority,  were  to  consider  whether  he  ought  not  to 
become  a  disciple  of  the  Guru  or  Imam."  Here  again, 
we  may  ask,  what  passage  of  Scripture  supports  this 
parallel  of  a  Mohammedan  Guru  before  a  British  offi- 
cer with  Jesus  Christ  before  Pontius  Pilate?  Where 
is  it  anywhere  stated,  or  by  reasonable  inference  im- 
plied, that  Pilate  considered  whether  he  ought  not  to 
become  a  disciple  of  Jesus?  The  celebrated  English 
author  has  simply  argued  his  case  from  a  radically 
defective  record  of  fact. 

On  the  other  hand,  let  us  draw  what  we  conceive  to 
be  a  true  parallel.  Let  us  take  an  illustration  nearer 
home.  Suppose  that  the  Governor  General  of  the 
Philippine  Islands  was  clothed  with  authority  of  life 
and  death  as  a  judge  in  criminal  matters  pertaining  to 
the  affairs  of  those  islands.  Suppose  that  a  Moham- 
medan preacher  should  appear  somewhere  in  the 
archipelago  where  Mohammedans  are  numerous,  and 
begin  to  proclaim  a  new  religious  faith  which  was  op- 
posed not  only  to  the  ordinary  tenets  of  Islamism,  but 
also  to  the  Christian  religion  which  is  the  dominant 
faith  of  the  rulers  of  the  Philippines.  Suppose  that 
the  coreligionists  of  this  Mohammedan  prophet  should 
seize  him,  bring  him  before  the  Governor  General, 
and  lodge  against  him  a  threefold  charge:  That  he  was 
stirring  up  sedition  in  the  islands;  that  he  had  advised 
the  Filipinos  not  to  pay  taxes  due  to  the  United  States 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     167 

government;  and  that  he  had  said  and  done  things  that 
were  treasonable  against  the  United  States.  Suppose 
that  the  Governor  General,  after  personal  examina- 
tion, became  satisfied  that  the  Mohammedan  preacher 
was  an  innocent  enthusiast,  that  the  charges  against 
him  were  false,  and  were  due  to  the  envy  and  hatred 
of  his  fellow-Mohammedans;  that  to  quiet  the  pas- 
sions, and  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  mob,  he  proposed 
to  scourge  him  first  and  then  release  him;  that,  in  the 
face  of  the  vehement  accusations  of  the  rabble,  he 
hesitated  and  vacillated  for  several  hours;  and  that 
finally,  when  the  Mohammedans  threatened  to  send  a 
complaint  to  President  Roosevelt  which  might  endan- 
ger his  position,  he  ordered  his  innocent  prisoner  to 
death.  Suppose  this  should  happen  beneath  the 
American  flag,  what  would  be  the  judgment  of  the 
American  people  as  to  the  merits  of  the  proceedings? 
Would  the  Governor  General  retain  his  office  by  such 
a  course  of  conduct? 

But  let  us  view  it  in  another  light.  Let  us  assume 
that  the  Governor  General  believed  that  the  Moham- 
medan preacher  was  innocent  and  that  his  "  personal 
intentions  "  were  not  remotely  hostile  or  treasonable, 
but  felt  that  his  preaching  might  stir  up  rebellion  dan- 
gerous to  the  power  of  the  American  government  in 
the  Philippines;  and  that  it  was  his  duty  as  the  guar- 
dian of  American  honor  and  security,  to  put  the  native 
preacher  to  death;  and  this  not  to  punish  past  criminal 
conduct,  but  to  prevent  future  trouble  by  a  timely  exe- 
cution. Suppose  that  the  Governor  General  should 
do  this  while  sitting  as  a  judge,  would  it  not  be  judicial 


1 68  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

murder?  Suppose  that  he  should  do  it  while  acting  as 
an  administrator,  would  it  be  less  an  assassination? 
Would  it  not  stamp  with  indelible  shame  the  admin- 
istration that  should  sanction  or  tolerate  it?  Would 
the  press  of  America  not  denounce  the  act  as  mur- 
der, declare  that  despotism  reigned  in  our  Eastern 
possessions,  and  demand  the  removal  and  punish- 
ment of  the  man  who  had  disgraced  his  office  and 
brought  odium  upon  the  administrative  justice  of  his 
country? 

In  closing  the  Roman  trial  of  Jesus,  let  us  repeat 
what  we  have  already  said:  that  the  conduct  of  Pilate, 
when  the  prisoner  was  first  brought  before  him,  seems 
to  have  been  marked  by  judicial  regularity  and  solem- 
nity; that  the  Roman  procurator  seems  to  have  deported 
himself  in  a  manner  worthy  of  his  office;  that,  in  the 
beginning,  he  appears  to  have  resolved  to  observe  due 
forms  of  law  in  the  proceedings,  to  the  end  that  justice 
might  be  attained;  and  that,  after  a  comparatively 
regular  trial,  he  pronounced  an  absolute  verdict  of  ac- 
quittal. Thus  far  the  course  of  Pilate  is  manly  and 
courageous.  But  with  the  return  of  the  prisoner  from 
Herod,  unmanliness  and  cowardice  begin. 

This  last  act  of  the  great  drama  presents  a  pitiable 
spectacle  of  Roman  degeneracy.  A  Roman  governor  of 
courtly  origin,  clothed  with  imperium,  with  a  Praeto- 
rian Cohort  at  his  command,  and  the  military  author- 
ity and  resources  of  an  empire  at  his  back,  cringes  and 
crouches  before  a  Jerusalem  mob.  The  early  Chris- 
tian writers  characterized  Pilate  with  a  single  term 
{avavSpia)^  "  unmanliness."     They  were  right.     This 


SUMMARY    OF   THE    ROMAN   TRIAL     169 

word  is  a  summary,  accurate  and  complete,  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  man. 

There  is  inherent  in  the  highest  and  noblest  of  the 
human  species  a  quality  of  courage  which  knows  no 
fear;  that  prefers  death  and  annihilation  to  dishonor 
and  disgrace;  that  believes,  with  Caesar,  that  it  is  bet- 
ter to  die  at  once  than  to  live  always  in  fear  of  death ; 
and,  with  Mahomet,  that  Paradise  will  be  found  in 
the  shadow  of  the  crossing  of  swords.  This  quality  of 
courage  is  peculiar  to  no  race  of  men  and  to  no  form 
of  civilization.  It  has  existed  everywhere  and  at  all 
times.  It  causes  the  spirit  of  man  to  tread  the  earth 
like  a  lion  and  to  mount  the  air  like  an  eagle.  The 
ancient  barbarians  of  Gaul  believed  that  lightning  was 
a  menace  from  the  skies;  and  amidst  the  very  fury  of 
the  storm,  from  their  great  bows  they  sent  arrows 
heavenward  as  a  defiance  to  the  gods.  This  quality  of 
courage,  which  is  natural  to  man,  Pilate  lacked.  And 
when  we  think  of  his  cowardly,  cringing,  crouching, 
vacillating  conduct  before  a  few  fanatical  priests  in 
Jerusalem,  another  scene  at  another  time  comes  up 
before  us.  The  Tenth  Legion  rises  in  mutiny  and  defies 
Julius  Caesar.  The  mighty  Roman  summons  his  rebel- 
lious soldiers  to  the  Field  of  Mars,  reads  to  them  the 
Roman  riot  act,  and  threatens  to  dismiss  them  not  only 
from  his  favor  but  from  Roman  military  service.  The 
veterans  of  a  hundred  Gallic  battlefields  are  subdued 
and  conquered  by  the  tone  and  glance  of  a  single  man; 
and  with  tearful  eyes,  beg  forgiveness,  and  ask  to  be 
permitted  to  follow  once  again  him  and  his  eagles  to 
the  feast  of  victory  and  of  death.    Imagine,  if  you  can. 


lyo  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Caesar  in  the  place  of  Pilate.  It  is  not  difficult  to  con- 
ceive the  fate  of  a  vulgar  rabble  who  persisted  in  an- 
noying such  a  Roman  by  demanding  the  blood  of  an 
innocent  man. 

But  the  cowardice  and  pusillanimity  of  the  Roman 
governor  are  not  properly  illustrated  by  comparison 
with  the  courage  and  magnanimity  of  a  Roman  gen- 
eral. At  the  trial  of  Jesus,  Pilate  was  acting  in  a  judi- 
cial capacity,  and  was  essentially  a  judge.  His  char- 
acter, then,  may  be  best  understood  by  contrasting  it 
with  another  judge  in  another  age  and  country.  His 
craven  qualities  will  then  be  manifest. 

The  greatest  of  the  English  jurists  and  judges  was 
Sir  Edward  Coke.  His  legal  genius  was  superb  and 
his  judicial  labors  prodigious.  During  the  greater 
part  of  his  professional  career  he  slept  only  six  hours, 
"  and  from  three  in  the  morning  till  nine  at  night  he 
read  or  took  notes  of  the  cases  tried  in  Westminster 
Hall  with  as  little  interruption  as  possible."  He  was 
great  not  only  as  a  judge,  but  as  an  advocate  as  well. 
The  consummate  skill  with  which  he  argued  the  intri- 
cate cases  of  Lord  Cromwell  and  Edward  Shelley, 
brought  him  a  practice  never  before  equaled  in  Eng- 
land, and  made  him  renowned  as  the  greatest  lawyer 
of  the  times.  If  his  erudition  was  profound,  his  pow- 
ers of  advocacy  brilliant,  his  personal  and  judicial 
courage  was  magnificent.  He  not  only  repeatedly  de- 
fied and  ridiculed  his  colleagues  on  the  bench,  but 
more  than  once  excited  the  wrath  and  braved  the  anger 
of  the  king.  He  fearlessly  planted  himself  upon  the 
ancient  and   inalienable   rights  of   Englishmen;   and, 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     171 

( , 

time  and  time  again,  interposed  his  robe  of  office 
between  the  privileges  of  the  Commons  and  the  ag- 
gressions of  the  Crown.  He  boldly  declared  that  a 
royal  proclamation  could  not  make  that  an  offense 
which  was  not  an  ofifense  before.  His  unswerving  in- 
dependence was  well  illustrated  in  a  case  brought 
before  him  in  1616.  The  question  at  issue  was  the 
validity  of  a  grant  made  by  the  king  to  the  Bishop  of 
Lichfield  of  a  benefice  to  be  held  in  commendam. 
King  James,  through  his  attorney-general,  Bacon, 
commanded  the  chief  justice  to  delay  judgment  till  he 
himself  had  discussed  the  question  with  the  judges. 
Bacon,  at  Coke's  request,  sent  a  letter  containing  the 
same  command  to  each  of  the  judges.  Coke  then 
obtained  their  signatures  to  a  paper  declaring  that 
the  instructions  of  the  attorney-general  were  ille- 
gal, and  that  they  were  bound  to  proceed  with  the 
case.  The  king  became  very  angry,  summoned  the 
judges  before  him  in  the  council  chamber,  declared  to 
them  his  kingly  prerogative,  and  forbade  them  to  dis- 
cuss his  royal  privileges  in  ordinary  arguments  before 
their  tribunal.  Coke's  colleagues  fell  upon  their  knees, 
cowed  and  terrified,  before  the  royal  bigot  and  despot, 
and  begged  his  pardon  for  having  expressed  an  opin- 
ion that  had  excited  his  displeasure.  But  Coke  refused 
to  yield,  and,  when  asked  if,  in  the  future,  he  would 
delay  a  case  at  the  king's  order,  he  bravely  replied  that 
on  all  occasions  and  under  any  emergency,  he  would 
do  nothing  unworthy  of  himself  or  his  office  as  an  Eng- 
lish citizen  and  judge.  And  rather  than  prostitute  the 
high  prerogatives  of  his  court,  he  indignantly  and  con- 


172  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

temptuously  hurled  his  judicial  mantle  into  the  face  of 
the  Stuart  king.  How  much  grander  and  nobler  was 
the  conduct  of  Coke,  the  Englishman,  than  that  of  Pi- 
late, the  cowardly,  pusillanimous  Roman!  Both  were 
judges,  both  stood  in  the  shadow  of  the  majesty  and 
menace  of  a  throne,  both  were  threatened  with  royal 
wrath,  both  held  high  judicial  places  under  the  gov- 
ernments of  the  most  vast  and  glorious  empires  that 
this  world  has  known.  Coke  preferred  the  dictates  of 
his  conscience  to  the  decrees  of  his  king;  and  his  name 
remains  forever  enshrined  in  the  minds  and  memories 
of  men  as  the  noblest  type  of  a  brave  and  righteous 
judge.  For  a  miserable  mess  of  Roman  political  pot- 
tage, Pilate  forfeited  his  birthright  to  the  most  splen- 
did and  illustrious  example  of  judicial  integrity  and 
courage  in  the  history  of  the  earth;  and  his  name  re- 
mains forever  a  hissing  and  reproach,  as  the  worst 
specimen  of  the  corrupt  and  cowardly  judge  that  man- 
kind has  known. 

If  it  be  objected  that  the  position  of  Pilate  was  more 
painful  and  precarious  than  that  of  Coke,  because  the 
Roman  was  confronted  by  a  wild  and  furious  mob, 
reply  must  then  be  made  that  both  the  spirit  and  letter 
of  Roman  laws  forbade  surrender  by  Roman  gover- 
nors and  administrators  of  the  principles  of  justice  to 
the  blind  passions  of  the  multitude.  This  spirit  was, 
in  a  later  age,  set  forth  in  the  laws  of  Justinian,  when 
reproduction  was  made  of  the  proclamations  of  the 
emperors  Diocletian  and  Maximian,  on  the  occasion 
of  a  public  riot,  that  "  the  vain  clamors  of  the  people 
are  not  to  be  heeded,  seeing  that  it  is  in  no  wise  neces- 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL    173 

sary  to  pay  any  attention  to  the  cries  of  those  desiring 
the  acquittal  of  the  guilty,  or  the  condemnation  of  the 
innocent."  ^ 

Pilate  yielded  to  the  demands  of  the  mob  when  his 
country's  laws  forbade  it.  His  intellect  willed  the  exe- 
cution of  an  innocent  man  when  his  conscience  con- 
demned it.  "  Such  was  the  man  whose  cowardice, 
made  manifest  in  the  most  supreme  and  memorable  act 
of  injustice  the  world  has  ever  known,  was  destined 
to  earn  him  eternal  infamy.  To  him  and  to  no  others 
pointed  the  poet  as 

'  colui 
Che  fece  per  viltate  il  gran  rifiuto; ' 

to  him,  the  prototype  of  that  long  train  of  those  who 
were  never  quite  alive,  who  vainly  sought  glory  in 
this  world,  vainly  dreaded  infamy;  who,  ever  waver- 
ing betwixt  good  and  evil,  washed  their  hands;  who, 
like  the  neutral  angels  of  the  threshold,  were  neither 
faithful  nor  rebellious;  who  are  equally  despised  by 
pity  and  justice;  who  render  themselves 

'A  Dio  spiacenti  ed  ai  nemici  sui.' 

And  what  man  other  than  Pilate  was  ever  placed  so 
typically,  in  such  accordance  with  the  eyes  of  the  poet, 
between  the  Son  of  God  and  His  enemies,  between  jus- 
tice and  mercy,  between  right  and  wrong,  between  the 

^  L.  12,  Cod.  De  poenis,  ix.  47:  "Vanae  voces  populi  non  sunt  audiendae, 
nee  enim  vocibus  eorum  credi  oportet  quando  aut  noxium  crimine  absolvi 
aut  innocentem  condemnari  desiderant." 


174  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

Emperor  and  the  Jews,  and  has  refused  either  issue  of 
the  dilemma? 

"  Was  it  Celestine,  Diocletian,  or  Esau?  But  they  of 
two  things  chose  the  one;  and  who  knows  but  that  they 
chose  the  better?  A  hermitage  and  a  mess  of  pottage 
may  under  many  aspects  be  better  worth  than  the 
papacy  renounced  by  Celestine,  than  the  empire  abdi- 
cated by  Diocletian,  or  than  the  birthright  bartered  by 
Esau.  But  Pilate  refused  to  choose,  and  his  refusal 
was  great — great  enough  to  justify  the  antonomasia  of 
Dante — and  it  was  cowardly.  He  refused  not  only  the 
great  gift  of  free  will,  in  a  case  when  a  free  choice 
was  his  absolute  duty.  When  admitted,  like  the  fallen 
angels,  to  the  great  choice  between  good  and  evil,  he 
did  not  cleave  for  ever  to  the  good,  as  did  S.  Michael, 
or  to  the  evil,  as  did  Lucifer,  but  he  refused  a  power 
which  for  him  was  the  fount  of  duty  and  which  cost 
the  life  of  a  man  and  the  right  of  an  innocent." 

But  was  Pilate  alone  guilty  of  the  crime  of  the  cru- 
cifixion? Were  the  Jews  wholly  blameless?  This 
raises  the  question:  Who  were  the  real  crucifiers  of  the 
Christ,  the  Jews  or  the  Romans?  That  the  Jews  were 
the  instigators  and  the  Romans  the  consummators  of 
the  crucifixion  is  evident  from  the  Gospel  narratives. 
The  Jews  made  the  complaint,  and  the  Romans  or- 
dered and  efifected  the  arrest  of  the  prisoner  in  Geth- 
semane.  Having  tried  Him  before  their  own  tri- 
bunal, the  Jews  then  led  Jesus  away  to  the  Roman 
governor,  and  in  the  Praetorium  accused  Him  and  fur- 
nished evidence  against  Him.  But  the  final  act  of 
crucifying  was  a  Roman  act.     It  is  true  that  Jewish 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     175 

elements  were  present  in  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus.  The 
death  draught  offered  Him  on  the  cross  suggests  a 
humane  provision  of  Hebrew  law.  This  drink  was 
usually  administered  among  the  Hebrews  "  so  that  the 
delinquent  might  lose  clear  consciousness  through  the 
ensuing  intoxication."  Again,  the  body  of  Jesus  was 
removed  from  the  cross  and  buried  before  it  was  night. 
This  was  in  deference  to  an  ancient  custom  of  the  Jews 
to  bury  criminals  before  sunset  who  had  first  been  ex- 
ecuted by  stoning  for  the  crime  of  blasphemy  and  had 
then  been  subjected  to  the  indignity  of  being  hung 
upon  a  tree,  in  conformity  with  a  Mosaic  ordinance 
contained  in  Deut.  xxi.  22.  But  these  two  incidents 
exhaust  the  Jewish  features  of  the  crucifixion;  and, 
besides,  these  elements  were  merely  physical.  The 
spiritual  or  moral  features,  involving  turpitude  and 
crime,  are  entirely  different  considerations  from  those 
that  are  simply  historical.  The  question  still  arises: 
Who  were  the  morally  guilty  parties?  Who  were  the 
directly  responsible  agents  of  the  crucifixion,  the  Jews 
or  the  Romans?  Upon  whom  should  the  greater 
blame  rest,  if  both  were  guilty?  A  passage  from  St. 
John  seems  to  indicate  that  the  Jews  were  the  bearers 
of  the  greater  sin.  Replying  to  a  question  of  Pilate 
concerning  the  procurator's  power  to  crucify  Him, 
^'  Jesus  answered.  Thou  couldest  have  no  power  at  all 
against  me,  except  it  were  given  thee  from  above; 
therefore  he  that  delivered  me  unto  thee  hath  the 
greater  sin."  ^  According  to  many  commentators, 
Jesus  referred  to  Caiaphas;  according  to  others,  He 

1  John  xix.  10. 


176  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

spoke  of  Judas  as  the  person  who  had  the  greater  sin. 
But  in  any  case  it  is  certain  that  He  did  not  intend  to 
involve  the  whole  Jewish  nation  in  the  crime  of  His 
arrest  and  execution.  The  language  of  the  scriptural 
context  indicates  a  single  person.  Pilate,  on  the  one 
hand,  is  made  the  silent  instrument  in  the  hands  of  God 
for  the  accomplishment  of  the  designs  of  Heaven. 
Caiaphas,  on  the  other  hand,  is  probably  referred  to 
as  the  one  having  the  greater  sin,  because,  being  the 
high  priest  of  the  Sanhedrin,  he  better  understood  the 
questions  involved  in  the  religious  charge  of  blas- 
phemy, and  was,  therefore,  the  greater  sinner  against 
the  laws  of  God,  in  the  matter  of  the  injustice  then 
being  perpetrated. 

Aside  from  the  religious  questions  involved,  and 
speaking  in  the  light  of  history  and  law,  our  own  judg- 
ment is  that  the  real  crucifiers  of  the  Christ  were  the 
Romans,  and  that  Pilate  and  his  countrymen  should 
bear  the  greater  blame.  It  is  true  that  the  Jews  were 
the  instigators,  the  accusers.  But  Pilate  was  the  judge 
whose  authority  was  absolute.  The  Jews  were  power- 
less to  inflict  the  death  penalty.  Pilate  had  the  final  dis- 
position of  all  matters  of  life  and  death.  In  short,  he 
could  have  prevented  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus.  He  did 
not  do  so;  and  upon  him  and  his  countrymen  should 
rest  the  censure  of  Heaven  and  the  execration  of  man- 
kind. 

But,  admitting  that  the  priests  of  the  Sanhedrin 
were  equally  guilty  with  Pilate  and  the  Romans,  does 
it  follow  that  all  Jews  of  the  days  of  Jesus  who  were 
not  participants  in  the  crime  against  him,  should  suffer 


SUMMARY   OF   THE    ROMAN   TRIAL    177 

for  the  folly  and  criminal  conduct  of  a  mere  fragment 
of  a  Sadducean  sect?  Is  it  not  true  that  the  Jewish 
people,  as  a  race,  were  not  parties  to  the  condemnation 
and  execution  of  the  Christ?  Is  it  not  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  the  masses  in  Palestine  were  friendly  to 
the  democratic  Reformer  who  was  the  friend  of  the 
poor,  the  lame,  and  the  blind?  Did  not  the  reception 
of  his  miracles  and  his  triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem 
indicate  His  popularity  with  the  plain  people?  Is  it 
not  historically  true  that  the  great  body  of  the  Jewish 
population  in  Judea,  in  Galilee,  in  Samaria,  and  in 
Perea,  was  unfriendly  to  the  members  of  the  Sanhe- 
drin,  and  regarded  them  as  political  renegades  and 
religious  delinquents?  Is  it  not  reasonably  certain 
that  a  large  majority  of  the  countrymen  of  Jesus  were 
his  ardent  well-wishers  and  sincerely  regretted  his  un- 
timely end?  Is  it  possible  to  conceive  that  these 
friends  and  well-wishers  were  the  inheritors  of  the 
curse  of  Heaven  because  of  the  crime  of  Golgotha? 
If  not,  is  it  rational  to  suppose  that  their  innocent  de- 
scendants have  been  the  victims  of  this  curse?  ^ 

The  cruel  and  senseless  notion  of  the  implacable 
wrath  of  Deity  has  prevailed  in  all  the  ages  as  an  ex- 
planation of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  dis- 
persion and  persecution  of  the  Jews.  It  is  worse  than 
nonsense  to  see  in  this  event  anything  but  the  operation 
of  vulgar  physical  forces  of  the  most  ordinary  kind. 
The  fall  of  Jerusalem  was  a  most  natural  and  conse- 
quential thing.  It  was  not  even  an  extraordinary  his- 
torical occurrence,  even  in  Jewish  history.  Titus  did 
not  so  completely  destroy  Jerusalem  as  did  Nebuchad- 


lyS  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

nezzar  before  him.  Razing  cities  to  the  ground  was 
a  customary  Roman  act,  a  form  of  pastime,  a  charac- 
teristic Roman  proceeding  in  the  case  of  stubborn  and 
rebellious  towns.  Scipio  razed  Carthage  and  drove 
Carthaginians  into  the  most  remote  corners  of  the 
earth.  Was  any  Roman  or  Punic  god  interested  in  this 
event?  Caesar  destroyed  many  Gallic  cities  and  scat- 
tered Gauls  throughout  the  world.  Was  any  deity 
concerned  about  these  things? 

Roman  admiration  was  at  times  enkindled,  but 
Roman  clemency  was  never  gained  by  deeds  of  valor 
directed  against  the  arms  of  Rome.  Neither  Hannibal 
nor  Mithradates,  Vercingetorix  nor  Jugurtha,  the 
grandest  of  her  enemies,  received  any  mercy  at  her 
hands.  To  oppose  her  will,  was  to  invite  destruction ; 
and  the  sequel  was  a  mere  question  of  "  the  survival  of 
the  fittest."  The  most  turbulent,  rebellious  and  deter- 
mined of  all  the  imperial  dependencies  was  the  prov- 
ince of  Judea.  The  Jews  regarded  the  Romans  as 
idolaters;  and,  instead  of  obeying  them  as  masters,  de- 
spised and  defied  them  as  barbarians.  When  this  spirit 
became  manifest  and  promised  to  be  perpetual,  the 
dignity  of  the  Roman  name  as  well  as  the  safety  of  the 
Roman  State,  demanded  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
and  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews.  And  destruction  and 
dispersion  followed  as  naturally  as  any  profane  effect 
follows  any  vulgar  cause. 

The  Irish,  another  splendid  race,  are  being  dis- 
persed throughout  the  earth  by  the  English  domina- 
tion of  Ireland.  Is  anybody  so  keenly  discerning  as  to 
see  in  Irish  dispersion  a  divine  or  superhuman  agency? 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     179 

Is  it  not,  after  all,  the  simple  operation  of  the  same 
brutal,  physical  forces  that  destroyed  Carthage  and 
Jerusalem,  and,  in  a  latter  century,  dismembered 
Poland? 

But  the  advocates  of  the  divine  wrath  theory  quote 
Scriptures  and  point  to  prophecy  in  support  of  their 
contention.  Then  Scriptures  must  be  pitted  against 
Scriptures.  The  last  prayer  of  the  Master  on  the  cross 
must  be  made  to  repeal  every  earlier  Scriptural  proph- 
ecy or  decree.  "  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know 
not  what  they  do,"  is  the  sublimest  utterance  in  the 
literature  of  the  world.  It  is  the  epitome  of  every 
Christian  virtue  and  of  all  religious  truth.  This  proc- 
lamation from  the  cross  repealed  the  Mosaic  law  of 
hereditary  sin;  placed  upon  a  personal  basis  responsi- 
bility for  offenses  against  God  and  man;  and  served 
notice  upon  future  generations  that  those  who  "  know 
not  what  they  do  "  are  entitled  to  be  spared  and  for- 
given. To  believe  that  God  ignored  the  prayer  of 
Christ  on  the  cross;  and  that  the  centuries  of  persecu- 
tion of  the  Jews  which  followed,  were  but  the  fulfill- 
ment of  prophecy  and  fate,  is  to  assail  the  Messiahship 
of  Jesus  and  to  question  the  goodness  and  mercy  of 
Jehovah.  Jesus  knew  the  full  meaning  of  His  prayer 
and  was  serious  unto  death.  To  believe  that  the  Father 
rejected  the  petition  of  the  Son  is  to  destroy  the  equal- 
ity of  the  persons  of  the  Trinity  by  investing  one  with 
the  authority  and  power  to  review,  revise,  and  reject 
the  judgments  and  petitions  of  the  others.  If  the 
Christian  doctrine  be  true  that  Christ  was  God  "  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh  ";  if  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  be  true 


i8o  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

that  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy 
Ghost,  are  one  and  the  same,  eternal  and  inseparable, 
then  the  prayer  of  Jesus  on  the  cross  was  not  a  petition, 
but  a  declaration  that  the  malefactors  of  the  crucifix- 
ion, who,  in  the  blindness  of  ignorance,  had  helped  to 
kill  the  Son  of  Man,  would  receive  at  the  Last  Day 
the  benefits  of  the  amnesty  of  the  Father  of  mercy  and 
forgiveness. 

If  the  perpetrators  of  the  great  injustice  of  the  San- 
hedrin  and  of  the  Praetorium  are  to  be  forgiven  be- 
cause they  knew  not  what  they  did,  is  there  any  justice, 
human  or  divine,  in  persecuting  their  innocent  de- 
scendants of  all  lands  and  ages?  "  When  Sir  Moses 
Montefiore  was  taunted  by  a  political  opponent  with 
the  memory  of  Calvary  and  described  by  him  as  one 
who  sprang  from  the  murderers  who  crucified  the 
world's  Redeemer,  the  next  morning  the  Jewish  phi- 
lanthropist, whom  Christendom  has  learned  to  honor, 
called  upon  his  assailant  and  showed  him  the  record  of 
his  ancestors  which  had  been  kept  for  two  thousand 
years,  and  which  showed  that  their  home  had  been  in 
Spain  for  two  hundred  years  before  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
was  born."  This  half-humorous  anecdote  illustrates 
the  utter  absurdity  and  supreme  injustice  of  connect- 
ing the  modern  Jew  with  ancient  tragic  history.  The 
elemental  forces  of  reason,  logic,  courage  and  sympa- 
thy, wrapped  up  and  interwoven  in  every  impulse  and 
fiber  of  the  human  mind  and  heart,  will  be  forever  in 
rebellion  against  the  monstrous  doctrine  of  centuries 
of  shame,  exile  and  persecution  visited  upon  an  entire 
race,  because  of  the  sins  and  crimes  of  a  handful  of 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     181 

their  progenitors  who   lived  more   than   a   thousand 
years  before. 

But,  if  the  visitation  of  the  sins  of  the  fathers  upon 
the  sons  is  to  be  maintained,  and  perpetuated  as  a  form 
of  divine,  if  not  of  human  justice,  then,  why  not,  at 
least,  be  consistent  in  the  application  of  the  principle? 
Many  philosophers  and  critics  have  detected  a  striking 
kinship  between  the  teachings  of  Socrates  and  those  of 
Jesus.  A  celebrated  historian  closes  a  chapter  of  the 
history  of  Greece  with  this  sentence:  "Thus  perished 
the  greatest  and  most  original  of  the  Grecian  philoso- 
phers (Socrates),  whose  uninspired  wisdom  made  the 
nearest  approach  to  the  divine  morality  of  the  Gos- 
pel." ^  The  indictments  against  the  philosopher  of 
Athens  and  the  Prophet  of  Nazareth  were  strikingly 
similar.  Socrates  was  charged  with  corrupting  Athe- 
nian youth;  Jesus,  with  perverting  the  nation.  Soc- 
rates was  charged  with  treason  against  Athens;  Jesus, 
with  treason  against  Rome.  Both  were  charged  with 
blasphemy;  the  Athenian,  with  blasphemy  of  the 
Olympic  gods;  the  Nazarene,  with  blaspheming  Jeho- 
vah. Both  sealed  with  their  blood  the  faith  that  was 
in  them.  If  the  descendants  of  the  crucifiers  of  the 
Christ  are  to  be  persecuted,  brutalized,  and  exiled  for 
the  sins  of  the  fathers,  why  not  apply  the  same  pitiless 
law  of  hereditary  punishment  to  the  descendants  of 
the  Athenian  dicasts  who  administered  hemlock  to  the 
greatest  sage  of  antiquity?  Why  not  persecute  all  the 
Greeks  of  the  earth,  wherever  found,  because  of  the 
injustice  of  the  Areopagus? 

1  Dr.  Smith's  "History  of  Greece,"  Chap.  XXXV.  p.  418. 


1 82  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

Coming  back  from  antiquity  and  the  Greeks  to  mod- 
ern times  in  America,  let  us  express  the  hope  that  all 
forms  of  race  prejudice  and  persecution  will  soon  cease 
forever.  It  is  a  truth  well  known  of  all  intelligent  men 
that  racial  prejudice  against  the  Jew  has  not  com- 
pletely vanished  from  the  minds  and  hearts  of  Gen- 
tiles; that  political  freedom  in  an  enlightened  age  has 
not  brought  with  it  full  religious  tolerance  and  social 
recognition;  that  the  Jew  enjoys  the  freedom  of  the 
letter,  but  is  still  under  the  ban  of  the  spirit.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  go  to  Russia  to  prove  this  contention.  In 
1896,  Adolf  von  Sonnenthal,  the  greatest  of  modern 
actors,  who  has  covered  the  Austrian  stage  with  glory, 
celebrated  the  fortieth  anniversary  of  his  entrance  into 
theatrical  life.  The  City  Council  of  Vienna  refused 
to  extend  him  the  freedom  of  the  city,  because  he  was 
a  Jew.  In  1906,  Madame  Bernhardt,  the  most  mar- 
velous living  woman,  while  acting  in  Canada,  was  in- 
sulted by  having  spoiled  eggs  thrown  upon  the  stage 
amidst  shouts  of  "  Down  with  the  Jewess!  "  This  out- 
rage called  forth  a  letter  of  apology,  which  appeared 
in  public  print,  from  Sir  Wilfred  Laurier,  Prime 
Minister  of  the  Dominion.  In  the  summer  of  1907, 
the  sister  of  Senator  Isidor  Rayner,  of  Maryland,  was 
refused  admission  to  an  Atlantic  City  hotel  because 
she  was  a  Jewess.*  Be  it  remembered  that  these  several 
acts  of  prejudice  and  persecution  did  not  happen  in 
the  Middle  Ages,  or  under  the  government  of  the  Ro- 
manoffs. Two  of  them  occurred  at  the  beginning  of 
the  twentieth  century,  beneath  the  flags  of  two  of  the 
freest  and  most  civilized  nations  of  the  globe.     What 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     183 

have  Americans  to  say  of  the  exclusion  of  a  virtuous, 
refined,  intelligent  sister  of  a  great  American  senator 
from  an  American  hotel  for  no  other  reason  than  that 
she  was  a  Jewess ;  that  is,  that  she  was  of  the  same  race 
with  the  Savior  of  mankind? 

There  is  certainly  no  place  for  religious  intolerance 
and  race  prejudice  beneath  our  flag.  False  and  hypo- 
critical our  religion,  if  while  professing  faith  in  Jesus 
we  continue  to  persecute  those  for  whom  He  prayed! 
In  vain  did  Washington,  marching  in  Liberty's  van- 
guard, "  lead  Freedom's  eaglets  to  their  feast  " ;  in  vain 
the  proclamation  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
and  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  at  Philadelphia, 
a  hundred  years  ago;  in  vain  the  bonfires  and  orations 
of  the  nation's  natal  day,  if  our  boasted  liberties  are  to 
exist  in  theory,  but  not  in  practice,  in  fancy,  but  not 
in  fact! 

Let  no  persecutor  of  the  Jew  lay  the  unction  to  his 
soul  that  he  is  justified  by  the  tragedy  of  Golgotha;  for 
he  who  persecutes  in  the  name  of  religion  is  a  spiritual 
barbarian,  an  intellectual  savage.  Let  this  same  perse- 
cutor not  make  the  mistake  of  supposing  that  the  Jews 
are  wholly  responsible  for  the  persecution  that  has 
been  heaped  upon  them.  Before  he  falls  into  the  fool- 
ish blunder  of  such  a  supposition,  let  him  ponder  the 
testimony  of  several  Gentile  experts  upon  the  subject. 
Let  him  read  "  The  Scattered  Nation,"  a  brilliant  lec- 
ture on  the  Jew  by  the  late  Zebulon  Vance,  of  North 
Carolina,  in  which  occurs  this  sentence:  "  If  the  Jew 
is  a  bad  job,  in  all  honesty  we  should  contemplate  him 
as  the  handiwork  of  our  own  civilization."     Let  him 


1 84  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

find  Shakespearean  confirmation  of  this  statement  in 
*'  The  Merchant  of  Venice,"  Act  III,  Scene  i.  If  the 
Jew-baiter  objects  that  this  is  the  imagination  of  a 
poet,  let  us  then  point  him  to  the  testimony  of  a  great 
historian  and  statesman  to  prove  to  him  that  the  Gen- 
tile is  in  great  measure  responsible  for  the  causes  that 
have  produced  Jewish  persecution. 

In  the  British  House  of  Commons,  on  April  17, 
1873,  a  bill  for  the  removal  of  the  disabilities  of  the 
Jews  was  the  subject  of  parliamentary  discussion. 
Lord  Macaulay  took  part  in  the  debate  and  spoke  as 
follows : 

The  honorable  member  for  Oldham  tells  us  that  the  Jews 
are  naturally  a  mean  race,  a  money-getting  race;  that  they 
are  averse  to  all  honorable  callings;  that  they  neither  sow 
nor  reap;  that  they  have  neither  flocks  nor  herds;  that 
usury  is  the  only  pursuit  for  which  they  are  fit;  that  they 
are  destitute  of  all  elevated  and  amiable  sentiments. 

Such,  sir,  has  in  every  age  been  the  reasoning  of  bigots. 
They  never  fail  to  plead  in  justification  of  persecution  the 
vices  which  persecution  has  engendered.  England  has  been 
legally  a  home  to  the  Jews  less  than  half  a  century,  and  we 
revile  them  because  they  do  not  feel  for  England  more  than 
a  half  patriotism. 

We  treat  them  as  slaves,  and  wonder  that  they  do  not  re- 
gard us  as  brethren.  We  drive  them  to  mean  occupations, 
and  then  reproach  them  for  not  embracing  honorable  pro- 
fessions. We  long  forbade  them  to  possess  land,  and  we 
complain  that  they  chiefly  occupy  themselves  in  trade.  We 
shut  them  out  from  all  the  paths  of  ambition,  and  then  wc 
despise  them  for  taking  refuge  in  avarice. 

During  many  ages  we  have,  in  our  dealings  with  them, 
abused  our  immense  superiority  of  force,  and  then  we  are 
disgusted  because  they  have  recourse  to  that  cunning  which 
is  the  natural  and  universal  defence  of  the  weak  against  the 


SUMMARY    OF   THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     185 

violence  of  the  strong.  But  were  they  always  a  mere  money- 
changing,  money-getting,  money-hoarding  race?  Nobody 
knows  better  than  my  honorable  friend,  the  member  for  the 
University  of  Oxford,  that  there  is  nothing  in  their  national 
character  which  unfits  them  for  the  highest  duties  of  citizens. 

He  knows  that,  in  the  infancy  of  civilization,  when  our 
island  was  as  savage  as  New  Guinea,  when  letters  and  art 
were  still  unknown  to  Athens,  when  scarcely  a  thatched  hut 
stood  on  what  was  afterwards  the  site  of  Rome,  this  con- 
temned people  had  their  fenced  cities  and  cedar  palaces, 
their  splendid  Temple,  their  fleets  of  merchant  ships,  their 
schools  of  sacred  learning,  their  great  statesmen  and  sol- 
diers, their  natural  philosophers,  their  historians  and  their 
poets. 

What  nation  ever  contended  more  manfully  against 
overwhelming  odds  for  Its  Independence  and  religion? 
What  nation  ever.  In  Its  last  agonies,  gave  such  signal  proofs 
of  what  may  be  accomplished  by  a  brave  despair?  And  if. 
In  the  course  of  many  centuries,  the  depressed  descendants  of 
warriors  and  sages  have  degenerated  from  the  qualities  of 
their  fathers;  if,  while  excluded  from  the  blessings  of  law 
and  bowed  down  under  the  yoke  of  slavery,  they  have  con- 
tracted some  of  the  vices  of  outlaws  and  slaves,  shall  we 
consider  this  Is  a  matter  of  reproach  to  them?  Shall  we  not 
rather  consider  It  as  a  matter  of  shame  and  remorse  to  our- 
selves? Let  us  do  justice  to  them.  Let  us  open  to  them 
the  door  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Let  us  open  to  them 
every  career  In  which  ability  and  energy  can  be  displayed. 
Till  we  have  done  this,  let  us  not  presume  to  say  that  there 
Is  no  genius  among  the  countrymen  of  Isaiah,  no  heroism 
among  the  descendants  of  the  Maccabees. 

If  the  persecutor  of  the  Jew  is  not  moved  by  the  elo- 
quence of  Macaulay  or  by  the  satire  and  sarcasm  of 
Shakespeare,  then  let  him  call  the  roll  of  Hebrew 
great  names  and  watch  the  mighty  procession  as  it 
moves.  Abraham  among  patriarchs;  Moses  among 
lawgivers;    Isaiah    and    Jeremiah    among    prophets; 


1 86  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

Philo,  Maimonides,  Spinoza,  and  Mendelsohn  among 
philosophers;  Herschel,  Sylvester,  Jacobi,  and  Kron- 
ecker  among  mathematicians  and  astronomers;  Jose- 
phus,  Neander,  Graetz,  Palgrave,  and  Geiger  among 
historians;  Mendelssohn,  Meyerbeer,  Offenbach, 
Goldmark,  Joachim,  Rubinstein,  and  Strauss  among 
musicians;  Sonnenthal,  Possart,  Rachel,  and  Bern- 
hardt among  actors  and  actresses;  Disraeli,  Gambetta, 
Castelar,  Lasker,  Cremieux,  and  Benjamin  among 
statesmen;  Halevi  and  Heine  among  poets;  Karl 
Marx  and  Samuel  Gompers  among  labor  leaders  and 
political  economists;  the  Rothschilds,  Bleichrorders, 
Schiffs,  and  Seligmans  among  financiers;  Auerbach 
and  Nordau  among  novelists;  Sir  Moses  Montefiore 
and  Baron  Hirsch  among  philanthropists! 

But  there  are  no  Caesars,  no  Napoleons,  no  Shake- 
speares,  no  Aristotles  among  them,  you  say?  Maybe 
so;  but  what  of  that?  Admitting  that  this  is  true,  is 
anything  proved  by  the  fact?  These  characters  repre- 
sented mountain  peaks  of  intellect,  and  were  the  iso- 
lated products  of  different  races  and  different  centu- 
ries. It  may  be  justly  observed  that,  of  their  kind,  no 
others  were  comparable  to  them.  But  if  the  "  moun- 
tain-peak "  theory  is  to  govern  as  to  the  intellectuality 
of  races,  will  it  be  seriously  contended  that  any  one  of 
the  last-mentioned  characters  was  equal  in  either  spir- 
itual or  intellectual  grandeur  to  the  Galilean  peasant, 
Jesus  of  Nazareth?  If  colossal  forms  of  intellect  and 
soul  be  invoked,  does  not  the  Jew  still  lead  the 
universe? 

Jesus  was  the  most  perfect  product  of  Jewish  spir- 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     187 

itual  creation,  the  most  precious  gem  of  human  life. 
The  most  brilliant  and  civilized  nations  of  the  earth 
worship  Him  as  God,  "  manifest  in  the  flesh,  justified 
by  the  Spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached  unto  the  Gen- 
tiles, believed  on  in  the  world,  received  up  into 
glory."  1 

Both  skeptics  and  believers  of  all  ages  have  alike 
pronounced  His  name  with  reverence  and  respect. 
Even  the  flippant,  sarcastic  soul  of  Voltaire  was  awed, 
softened  and  subdued  by  the  sweetness  of  His  life  and 
the  majesty  of  His  character.^ 

"  If  the  life  and  death  of  Socrates  are  those  of  a 
sage,"  said  Rousseau,  "  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  are 
those  of  a  God."  ^ 

"  Jesus  of  Nazareth,"  says  Carlyle,  "  our  divinest 
symbol!  Higher  has  the  human  thought  not  yet 
reached.  A  symbol  of  quite  perennial,  infinite  char- 
acter, whose  significance  will  ever  demand  to  be  anew 
inquired  into,  and  anew  made  manifest."  * 

"Jesus  Christ,"  says  Herder,  "is  in  the  noblest 
and  most  perfect  sense,  the  realized  ideal  of  hu- 
manity." ■'"' 

"  He  is,"  says  Strauss,  "  the  highest  object  we  can 
possibly  imagine  with  respect  to  religion,  the  Being 
without  whose  presence  in  the  mind  perfect  piety  is 
impossible."  ^' 

"  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels,"  says  Renan,  "  is  the 

1  I  Tim.  iii.  16.  2  See  Diet.  Philos.    Art.  "Religion." 

^  "Emile."  *  "Sartor  Resartus,"  137,  140. 

^"Herzog's  Encyc."  vol.  v.  751.     Art.  "Herder." 
^"Vergangl.  u.  Bleibendes  im  Christenthum,"  132. 


1 88  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

most  beautiful  incarnation  of  God  In  the  most  beau- 
tiful of  forms.  His  beauty  is  eternal;  His  reign  will 
never  end."  ^ 

Max  Nordau  betrays  secret  Jewish  pride  in  Jesus 
when  he  says:  "  Jesus  is  soul  of  our  soul,  even  as  he  is 
flesh  of  our  flesh.  Who,  then,  could  think  of  excluding 
him  from  the  people  of  Israel?  St.  Peter  will  remain 
the  only  Jew  who  has  said  of  the  Son  of  David,  '  I 
know  not  the  man.'  Putting  aside  the  Messianic  mis- 
sion, this  man  is  ours.  He  honors  our  race,  and  we 
claim  him  as  we  claim  the  Gospels — flowers  of  Jewish 
literature  and  only  Jewish." 

"  Is  it  a  truth,"  asks  Keim,  "  or  is  it  nothing  but 
words,  when  this  virtuous  God-allied  human  life  is 
called  the  noblest  blossom  of  a  noble  tree,  the  crown 
of  the  cedar  of  Israel?  A  full  vigorous  life  in  a  barren 
time,  a  new  building  among  ruins,  an  erect  strong  na- 
ture among  broken  ones,  a  Son  of  God  among  the  god- 
less and  the  God-forsaken,  one  who  was  joyous, 
hopeful,  generous  among  those  who  were  mourning 
and  in  despair,  a  freeman  among  slaves,  a  saint  among 
sinners — by  this  contradiction  to  the  facts  of  the  time, 
by  this  gigantic  exaltation  above  the  depressed  uni- 
formity of  the  century,  by  this  compensation  for  stag- 
nation, retrogression,  and  the  sickness  of  death  in 
progress,  health,  force  and  color  of  eternal  youth — 
finally,  by  the  lofty  uniqueness  of  what  he  achieved,  of 
his  purity,  of  his  God-nearness — he  produces,  even 
with  regard  to  endless  new  centuries  that  have  through 
him   been   saved    from   stagnation    and    retrogression, 

1  "Etudes  d'Hist.  Rel.,"  pp.  213,  214. 


SUMMARY    OF   THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     189 

the  impression  of  mysterious  solitariness,  superhuman 
miracle,  divine  creation."  ^ 

^'  Between  Him  and  whoever  else  in  the  world,"  said 
Napoleon  at  St.  Helena,  "  there  is  no  possible  term  of 
comparison."  ^ 

Throughout  Napoleonic  literature  two  names  con- 
stantly recur  as  exhibiting  the  Corsican's  ideals  of  spir- 
itual and  intellectual  perfection.  These  names  are 
those  of  Jesus  Christ  and  Julius  Caesar.  Napoleon's 
stupendous  genius  and  incomprehensible  destiny 
formed  the  basis  of  a  secret  conviction  within  his  soul 
that  with  Jesus  and  Caesar  displaced,  he  himself  would 
be  the  grandest  ornament  of  history.  But  in  the  mind 
of  the  emperor  there  was  no  element  of  equality  or 
comparison  between  Jesus  and  Caesar.  The  latter  he 
regarded  as  the  crown  and  consummation  of  Roman 
manhood,  the  most  superb  character  of  the  ancient 
world.     The  former  he  believed  to  be  divine. 

It  was  the  custom  of  Napoleon  while  in  exile  at  St. 
Helena  to  converse  almost  daily  about  the  illustrious 
men  of  antiquity  and  to  compare  them  with  himself. 
On  one  occasion  while  talking  upon  his  favorite  theme 
with  an  officer,  one  of  the  companions  of  his  exile,  he 
suddenly  stopped  and  asked:  "But  can  you  tell  me  who 
Jesus  Christ  was?  "  In  reply,  the  officer  candidly  con- 
fessed that  he  had  never  thought  much  about  the 
Nazarene.  "  Well,  then,"  said  Napoleon,  "  I  will  tell 
you."  The  illustrious  captive  then  compared  Jesus 
with  the  heroes  of  antiquity  and  finally  with  himself. 

1  "Jesus  of  Nazara,"  vol.  vi.  pp.  430,  431. 

2  Montholon,  "Recit  de  la  Captivite  de  I'Emp.  Napoleon." 


I90  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

The  comparison  demonstrated  how  paltry  and  con- 
temptible was  everything  human  when  viewed  in  the 
light  of  the  divine  character  and  sublime  achievements 
of  the  Man  of  Nazareth.  "  I  think  I  understand 
somewhat  of  human  nature,"  said  Napoleon,  "  and  I 
tell  you  all  these  were  men,  and  I  am  a  man,  but  not 
one  is  like  Him;  Jesus  Christ  was  more  than  man. 
Alexander,  Cssar,  Charlemagne,  and  myself  founded 
great  empires;  but  upon  what  did  the  creations  of  our 
genius  depend?  Upon  force.  Jesus  alone  founded 
His  empire  upon  love,  and  to  this  very  day  millions 
would  die  for  Him."  ^ 

We  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  homage 
paid  the  character  of  Jesus  by  Napoleon  was  not 
merely  the  product  of  his  brain,  but  was  also  the  hum- 
ble tribute  of  his  heart.  When  the  disasters  of  the  Rus- 
sian campaign  broke  upon  his  fortunes,  when  "  the 
infantry  of  the  snow  and  the  cavalry  of  the  wild  blast 
scattered  his  legions  like  winter's  withered  leaves,"  the 
iron-hearted,  granite-featured  man  who  had  "  con- 
quered the  Alps  and  had  mingled  the  eagles  of  France 
with  the  eagles  of  the  crags,"  only  laughed  and  joked. 
But,  while  contemplating  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus, 
he  became  serious,  meditative  and  humble.  And  when 
he  came  to  write  his  last  will  and  testament,  he  made 
this  sentence  the  opening  paragraph:  "I  die  in  the 
Roman  Catholic  Apostolical  religion,  in  the  bosom  of 
which  I  was  born  more  than  fifty  years  ago."  ^    The 

1  Bertrand's  "Memoir?,"  Paris,  1844. 

2  "  Je  meurs  dans  la  religion  catholique,  apostolique  et  romaine,  dans  le 
sein  de  laquellc  je  suis  ne,  il  y  a  plus  de  cinquante  ans." 


SUMMARY    OF    THE    ROMAN    TRIAL     191 

Christianity  of  Napoleon  has  been  questioned.  It  is 
respectfully  submitted  that  only  an  ungenerous  criti- 
cism will  attribute  hypocrisy  to  this  final  testimony  of 
his  religious  faith.  The  imperial  courage,  the  grand- 
eur of  character,  and  the  loftiness  of  life  of  the  great- 
est of  the  emperors  negative  completely  the  thought  of 
insincerity  in  a  declaration  made  at  a  time  when  every 
earthly  inducement  to  misrepresentation  had  passed 
forever. 

But  Jesus  was  not  the  Christ,  the  Savior  of  warrior- 
kings  alone,  in  the  hour  of  death.  On  the  battlefield 
of  Inkerman  an  humble  soldier  fell  mortally  wounded. 
He  managed  to  crawl  to  his  tent  before  he  died. 
When  found  he  was  lying  face  downward  with  the 
open  Bible  beside  him.  His  right  hand  was  glued 
with  his  lifeblood  to  Chapter  XL,  Verse  25  of  St. 
John.  When  the  hand  was  lifted,  these  words,  con- 
taining the  ever-living  promise  of  the  Master,  could 
be  clearly  traced:  "  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life: 
he  that  believeth  in  me,  though  he  were  dead,  yet  shall 
he  live." 


PART   II 
GRMCO-RGMAN  PAGANISM 


JUPITER     (antique    SCULPTURE) 


CHAPTER    I 


GR^CO-ROMAN     PAGANISM 


\XTENT  of  the  Roman  Empire 
at  the  Time  of  Christ. — The  pol- 
icy of  ancient  Rome  was  to  ex- 
tend and  hold  her  possessions  by 
force  of  arms.  She  made  de- 
mands; and  if  they  were  not 
complied  with,  she  spurned  the 
medium  of  diplomacy  and  ap- 
pealed for  arbitrament  to  the 
god  of  battles.  Her  achievements  were  the  achieve- 
ments of  war.  Her  glories  were  the  glories  of  combat. 
Her  trophies  were  the  treasures  of  conquered  prov- 
inces and  chained  captives  bowed  in  grief  and  shame. 
Her  theory  was  that  "might  makes  right";  and  in 
vindication  and  support  of  this  theory  she  imbued  her 
youth  with  a  martial  spirit,  trained  them  in  the  use  of 
arms  from  childhood  to  manhood,  and  stationed  her 
legions  wherever  she  extended  her  empire.  Thus,  mili- 
tary discipline  and  the  fortune  of  successful  warfare 
formed  the  basis  of  the  prosperity  of  Rome. 

At  the  period  of  which  we  write,  her  invincible 
legions  had  accomplished  the  conquest  of  the  civilized 
earth.  Britain,  Gaul,  Spain,  Italy,  Illyria,  Greece,  Asia 
Minor,  Africa,  Egypt,  and  the  islands  of  the  Medi- 

195 


196  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

terranean — six  hundred  thousand  square  leagues  of  the 
most  fertile  territory  in  the  world — had  been  subdued 
to  the  Roman  will  and  had  become  obedient  to  Roman 
decrees.  "  The  empire  of  the  Romans,"  says  Gibbon, 
*'  filled  the  world,  and  when  that  empire  fell  into  the 
hands  of  a  single  person,  the  world  became  a  safe  and 
dreary  prison  for  his  enemies.  The  slave  of  imperial 
despotism,  whether  he  was  compelled  to  drag  his 
gilded  chain  in  Rome  and  the  Senate,  or  to  wear  out 
a  life  of  exile  on  the  barren  rock  of  Seriphus,  or  on 
the  frozen  banks  of  the  Danube,  expected  his  fate  in 
silent  despair.  To  resist  was  fatal,  and  it  was  impos- 
sible to  fly.  On  every  side  he  was  encompassed  by  a 
vast  extent  of  sea  and  land,  which  he  could  never  hope 
to  traverse  without  being  discovered,  seized,  and  re- 
stored to  his  irritated  master.  Beyond  the  frontiers, 
his  anxious  view  could  discover  nothing,  except  the 
ocean,  inhospitable  deserts,  hostile  tribes  of  barbarians, 
of  fierce  manners  and  unknown  language,  or  depend- 
ent kings  who  would  gladly  purchase  the  emperor's 
protection  by  the  sacrifice  of  an  obnoxious  fugitive. 
'  Wherever  you  are,'  said  Cicero  to  the  exiled  Marcel- 
lus,  '  remember  that  you  are  equally  within  the  power 
of  the  conqueror.'  " 

In  obedience  to  a  universal  law  of  development  and 
growth,  when  the  Roman  empire  had  reached  the  lim- 
its of  physical  expansion,  when  Roman  conquest  was 
complete,  when  Roman  laws  and  letters  had  reached 
approximate  perfection,  and  when  Roman  civilization 
had  attained  its  crown  and  consummation,  Roman  de- 
cline began.    The  birth  of  the  empire  marked  the  be- 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  197 

ginning  of  the  end.  It  was  then  that  the  shades  of 
night  commenced  to  gather  slowly  upon  the  Roman 
world;  and  that  the  Roman  ship  of  state  began  to  move 
slowly  but  inevitably,  upon  a  current  of  indescribable 
depravity  ^  and  degeneracy,  toward  the  abyss.  The 
Roman  giant  bore  upon  his  shoulders  the  treasures  of 
a  conquered  world;  and  Bacchus-like,  reeled,  crowned 
and  drunken,  to  his  doom. 

No  period  of  human  history  is  so  marked  by  lust  and 
licentiousness  as  the  history  of  Rome  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Christian  era.  The  Roman  religion  had  fallen 
into  contempt.  The  family  instinct  was  dead,  and  the 
marital  relation  was  a  mockery  and  a  shame.  The 
humane  spirit  had  vanished  from  Roman  hearts,  and 
slavery  was  the  curse  of  every  province  of  the  empire. 
The  destruction  of  infants  and  the  gladiatorial  games 
were  mere  epitomes  of  Roman  brutality  and  degener- 
acy. Barbarity,  corruption  and  dissoluteness  pervaded 
every  form  of  Roman  life. 

A  perfect  picture  of  the  depravity  of  the  times  about 
which  we  write  may  be  had  from  a  perusal  of  the 
Roman  satirists,  Tacitus  and  Juvenal.  The  ordinary 
Roman  debauchee  was  not  the  sole  victim  of  their 
wrath.  They  chiseled  the  hideous  features  of  the 
Caesars  with  a  finer  stroke  than  that  employed  by 
Phidias  and  Praxiteles  in  carving  statues  of  the  Olym- 
pic gods. 

The  purpose  of  Part  II  of  this  volume  is  to  give  col- 
oring and  atmosphere  to  the  picture  of  the  trial  and 
crucifixion  of  Jesus  by  describing:  (i)  The  Graeco- 
Roman   religion;   and    (2)    the   Graeco-Roman   social 


198  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

life,  during  the  century  preceding  and  the  century  fol- 
lowing the  birth  of  the  Savior. 

I. THE     GR^CO-ROMAN     RELIGION 

Origin  and  Multiplicity  of  the  Roman  Gods. — The 
Romans  acquired  their  gods  by  inheritance,  by  impor- 
tation, and  by  manufacture.  The  Roman  race  sprang 
from  a  union  of  Etruscans,  Latins,  and  Sabines;  and 
the  gods  of  these  different  tribes,  naturalized  and 
adopted,  were  the  first  deities  of  Rome.  Chief  among 
them  were  Janus,  Jupiter,  Juno,  and  Minerva.  Other 
early  Roman  deities  were  Sol,  the  Sun,  and  Luna  the 
Moon,  both  of  Sabine  origin;  Mater  Matuta,  Mother 
of  Day;  Divus  Pater  Tiberinus,  or  Father  Tiber;  Fon- 
tus,  the  god  of  fountains;  Vesta,  the  goddess  of  the 
hearth;  and  the  Lares  and  Penates,  household  gods. 

These  primitive  Italian  divinities  were  at  first 
mere  abstractions,  simple  nature-powers;  but  later  they 
were  Hellenized  and  received  plastic  form.  The 
Greeks  and  Romans  had  a  common  ancestry  and  the 
amalgamation  of  their  religions  was  an  easy  matter. 
The  successive  steps  in  the  process  of  blending  the  two 
forms  of  worship  are  historical.  From  Cumae,  one  of 
the  oldest  Greek  settlements  in  Italy,  the  famous  Sibyl- 
line books  found  their  way  to  Rome;  and  through  these 
books  the  Greek  gods  and  their  worship  established 
themselves  in  Italy.  The  date  of  the  arrival  of  several 
of  the  Hellenic  deities  is  well  ascertained.  The  first 
temple  to  Apollo  was  vowed  in  the  year  351  A.U.C.  To 
check  a  lingering  epidemic  of  pestilence  and  disease, 
the  v/orship  of  ^sculapius  was  introduced  from  Epi- 


GRiE CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  199 

daurus  into  Rome  in  the  year  463.  In  549,  Cybele, 
the  Idaean  mother,  was  imported  from  Phrygia,  in  the 
shape  of  a  black  stone,  and  was  worshiped  at  Rome  by 
order  of  the  Sibylline  books. 

In  various  ways,  the  Hellenization  of  the  Roman 
religion  was  accomplished.  The  Decemviri,  to  whom 
the  consulting  of  the  Sibylline  books  was  intrusted,  fre- 
quently interpreted  them  to  mean  that  certain  foreign 
gods  should  be  invited  at  once  to  take  up  their  resi- 
dence in  Rome. 

The  introduction  of  Greek  literature  also  resulted  in 
the  importation  of  Greek  gods.  The  tragedies  of 
Livius  Andronicus  and  the  comedies  of  Naevius, 
founded  upon  Greek  legends  of  gods  and  heroes,  were 
presented  in  Rome  in  the  later  years  of  the  third  cen- 
tury B.C.  Fragments  of  Greek  literature  also  began  to 
make  their  way  into  the  Capital  about  this  time. 
Philosophers,  rhetoricians,  and  grammarians  flocked 
from  Greece  to  Italy  and  brought  with  them  the  works 
of  Homer,  Hesiod  and  the  Greek  philosophers,  whose 
writings  were  permeated  with  Greek  mythology. 

Grecian  sculpture  was  as  potent  as  Grecian  litera- 
ture in  transforming  and  Hellenizing  the  religion  of 
Rome.  The  subjugation  of  the  Greek  colonies  in  the 
south  of  Italy  and  the  conquests  of  Greek  cities  like 
Syracuse  and  Corinth  in  the  East,  brought  together  in 
Rome  the  masterpieces  of  the  Greek  sculptors. 

A  determined  effort  was  made  from  time  to  time  by 
the  patriotic  Romans  to  destroy  Hellenic  influence  and 
to  preserve  in  their  original  purity  early  Roman  forms 
of  worship.    But  all  attempts  were  futile.    The  aver- 


200  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

age  Roman  citizen,  though  practical  and  unimagina- 
tive, was  still  enamored  of  the  beautiful  myths  and  ex- 
quisite statues  of  the  Greek  gods.  And  it  was  only  by 
Hellenizing  their  own  deities  that  they  could  bring 
themselves  into  touch  and  communion  with  the  Hel- 
lenic spirit.  The  aesthetical  and  fascinating  influence 
of  the  Greek  language,  literature  and  sculpture,  was 
overwhelming.  "  At  bottom,  the  Roman  religion  was 
based  only  on  two  ideas — the  might  of  the  gods  who 
were  friendly  to  Rome,  and  the  power  of  the  ceremo- 
nies over  the  gods.  How  could  a  religion,  so  poverty- 
stricken  of  thought,  with  its  troops  of  phantom  gods, 
beingless  shadows  and  deified  abstractions,  remain  un- 
scathed and  unaltered  when  it  came  in  contact  with 
the  profusion  of  the  Greek  religion,  with  its  circle  of 
gods,  so  full  of  life,  so  thoroughly  anthropomorphised, 
so  deeply  interwoven  into  everything  human?  "^ 

Not  only  from  Greece  but  from  every  conquered 
country,  strange  gods  were  brought  into  Italy  and 
placed  in  the  Roman  pantheon.  When  a  foreign  city 
was  besieged  and  captured,  the  Romans,  after  a  pre- 
liminary ceremony,  invited  the  native  gods  to  leave 
their  temples  and  go  to  Rome  where,  they  were  as- 
sured, they  would  have  much  grander  altars  and  would 
receive  a  more  enthusiastic  worship.  It  was  a  reli- 
gious belief  of  the  ancient  masters  of  the  world  that 
gods  could  be  enticed  from  their  allegiance  and 
induced  to  emigrate.  In  their  foreign  wars,  the  Ro- 
mans frequently  kept  the  names  of  their  own  gods 
secret  to  prevent  the  enemy  from  bribing  them. 

^  Dollinger,  "The  Gentile  and  the  Jew,"  vol.  ii.  p.  29. 


GRv^CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  201 

The  gods  at  Rome  increased  in  number  just  in  pro- 
portion that  the  empire  expanded.  The  admission  of 
foreign  territory  brought  with  it  the  introduction  of 
strange  gods  into  the  Roman  worship. 

When  the  Romans  needed  a  new  god  and  could  not 
find  a  foreign  one  that  pleased  them,  they  deliberately 
manufactured  a  special  deity  for  the  occasion.  In  the 
breaking  up  and  multiplication  of  the  god-idea,  they 
excelled  all  the  nations  of  antiquity.  It  was  the  duty 
of  the  pontiffs  to  manufacture  a  divinity  whenever  an 
emergency  arose  and  one  was  needed.  The  god- 
casting  business  was  a  regular  employment  of  the  De- 
cemviri and  the  Quindecemviri;  and  a  perusal  of  the 
pages  of  Roman  history  reveals  these  god-makers 
actively  engaged  in  their  workshops  making  some 
new  deity  to  meet  some  new  development  in  Roman 
life. 

The  extent  of  the  polytheistic  notions  of  the  ancient 
Romans  is  almost  inconceivable  to  the  modern  mind. 
Not  only  were  the  great  forces  of  nature  deified,  but 
the  simplest  elements  of  time,  of  thought,  and  action. 
Ordinary  mental  abstractions  were  clothed  with  the 
attributes  of  gods.  Mens  (Mind),  Pudicitia  (Chas- 
tity), Pietas  (Piety),  Fides  (Fidelity),  Concordia 
(Concord),  Virtus  (Courage),  Spes  (Hope),  and 
Voluptas  (Pleasure),  were  all  deities  of  the  human 
soul,  and  were  enthusiastically  worshiped  by  the  Ro- 
mans. A  single  human  action  was  frequently  broken 
into  parts  each  of  which  had  a  little  god  of  its  own. 
The  beginning  of  a  marriage  had  one  deity  and  its 
conclusion,  another.     Cunina  was  the  cradle-goddess 


202  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

of  a  child.  Statilinus,  Edusa,  Potnia,  Paventia,  Fa- 
belinus  and  Catius  were  other  goddesses  who  pre- 
sided over  other  phases  of  its  infancy.  Juventas  was 
the  goddess  of  its  youth;  and,  in  case  of  loss  of 
parents,  Orbona  was  the  goddess  that  protected  its 
orphanage. 

Any  political  development  in  the  Roman  state  ne- 
cessitated a  new  divinity  to  mark  the  change.  In  the 
early  periods  of  their  history,  the  Romans  used  cattle 
as  a  medium  of  exchange  in  buying  and  bartering. 
Pecunia  was  then  the  goddess  of  such  exchange.  But 
when,  in  later  times,  copper  money  came  into  use,  a 
god  called  ^^sculanus  was  created  to  preside  over  the 
finances;  and  when,  still  later,  silver  money  began  to 
be  used,  the  god  Argentarius  was  called  into  being  to 
protect  the  coinage.  This  Argentarius  was  naturally 
the  son  of  ^^sculanus. 

Not  only  the  beneficent  but  the  malign  forces  of  na- 
ture were  deified.  Pests,  plagues,  and  tempests  had 
their  special  divinities  who  were  to  be  placated. 
"  There  were  particular  gods  for  every  portion  of  a 
dwelling — the  door,  the  threshold  of  the  door,  and 
even  the  hinges  of  the  door.  There  was  a  special  god 
for  each  different  class — even  the  most  menial  and  the 
most  immoral;  and  a  special  divinity  for  those  who 
were  afflicted  in  a  peculiar  manner,  such  as  the  child- 
less, the  maimed  or  the  blind.  There  was  the  god  of 
the  stable,  and  the  goddess  of  the  horses;  there  were 
gods  for  merchants,  artists,  poets  and  tillers  of  the  soil. 
The  gods  must  be  invoked  before  the  harvest  could  be 
reaped ;  and  not  even  a  tree  could  be  felled  in  the  for- 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  203 

est  without  supplicating  the  unknown  god  who  might 
inhabit  it."  ^ 

The  extreme  of  the  Roman  divinity-making  process 
was  the  deification  of  mere  negative  ideas.  Tranquil- 
litas  Vacuna  was  the  goddess  of  "  doing  nothing." 

Not  only  were  special  actions  and  peculiar  ideas 
broken  up  and  subdivided  with  an  appropriate  divin- 
ity for  each  part  or  subdivision,  but  the  individual 
gods  themselves  were  subdivided  and  multiplied.  It  is 
said  that  there  were  three  hundred  Jupiters  in  Rome. 
This  means  that  Jupiter  was  worshiped  under  three 
hundred  different  forms.  Jupiter  Pluvius,  Jupiter 
Fulgurator,  Jupiter  Tonans,  Jupiter  Fulminator,  Ju- 
piter Imbricitor,  Jupiter  Serenator,  were  only  a  few 
designations  of  the  supreme  deity  of  the  Romans. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  polytheism  was  insatiable 
in  its  thirst  for  new  and  strange  gods.  When  the  god- 
casting  business  was  once  begun,  there  was  no  end  to 
it.  And  when  the  Roman  empire  had  reached  its 
greatest  expansion,  and  Roman  public  and  private  life 
had  attained  to  complete  development,  the  deities  of 
the  Roman  religion  were  innumerable.  No  pantheon 
could  hold  them,  and  no  Roman  could  remember  the 
names  of  all.  Temples  of  the  gods  were  everywhere 
to  be  found  throughout  the  empire;  and  where  there 
were  no  altars  or  temples,  certain  trees,  stones  and 
rocks  were  decorated  with  garlands  and  worshiped  as 
sacred  places  which  the  gods  were  supposed  to  fre- 
quent. Thus  the  Roman  world  became  crowded  with 
holy  places,  and  the  gods  and  goddesses  became  an 

1  "Preparation  of  the  World  for  Christ,"  pp.  380,  381. 


ao4  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

innumerable  host.  Petronius  makes  a  countrywoman 
from  a  district  adjoining  Rome  declare  that  it  was 
much  easier  to  find  a  god  in  her  neighborhood  than  a 
man.  We  shall  see  that  the  multiplicity  of  the  gods 
was  finally  the  cause  of  the  decay  and  ruin  of  the 
Roman  religion. 

The  Roman  Priesthood. — The  Roman  priesthood 
was  composed  of  several  orders  of  pontiffs,  augurs, 
keepers  of  the  Sibylline  books,  Vestal  virgins,  epulos, 
salians,  lupercals,  etc. 

Fifteen  pontiffs  exercised  supreme  control  in  matters 
of  religion.  They  were  consecrated  to  the  service  of 
the  gods;  and  all  questions  of  doubtful  religious  inter- 
pretation were  submitted  to  the  judgment  of  their 
tribunal. 

'*  Fifteen  learned  and  experienced  augurs  observed 
the  phenomena  of  nature  and  studied  the  flight  of  birds 
as  a  means  of  directing  the  actions  of  the  state. 

Fifteen  keepers  of  the  Sibylline  books  read  the  pages 
of  their  treasures  and  from  them  divined  coming 
events. 

Six  Vestals,  immaculate  in  their  virginity,  guarded 
the  Roman  sacred  fire,  and  presided  at  the  national 
hearthstone  of  the  Roman  race. 

Seven  epulos  conducted  the  solemn  processions  and 
regulated  the  religious  ceremonies  at  the  annual  fes- 
tivals of  the  gods. 

Fifteen  flamens  were  consecrated  to  the  service  of 
separate  deities.  Those  of  Jupiter,  Mars,  and  Quiri- 
nus  were  held  in  the  highest  esteem.  The  Flamen 
Dialis,  or  priest  of  Jupiter,  was  loaded  down  with  re- 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  205 

ligious  obligations  and  restrictions.  He  was  not  per- 
mitted to  take  an  oath,  to  ride,  to  have  anything  tied 
with  knots  on  his  person,  to  look  at  a  prisoner,  see 
armed  men,  or  to  touch  a  dog,  a  goat,  or  raw  flesh,  or 
yeast.  He  was  not  allowed  to  bathe  in  the  open  air; 
nor  could  he  spend  the  night  outside  the  city.  He 
could  resign  his  office  only  on  the  death  of  his  wife. 
The  Salians  were  priests  of  Mars,  who,  at  festivals 
celebrated  in  honor  of  the  war-god,  danced  in  heavy 
armor,  and  sang  martial  hymns. 

Roman  Forms  of  Worship. — Roman  worship  was 
very  elaborate  and  ceremonial.  It  consisted  of  sacri- 
fices, vows,  prayers,  and  festivals.  With  the  exception 
of  the  ancient  Hebrews,  the  Romans  were  the  greatest 
formalists  and  ritualists  of  antiquity.  Every  act  of 
Roman  public  and  private  life  was  supposed  to  be 
framed  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  the  gods. 
There  was  a  formula  of  prayer  adapted  to  every  vicis- 
situde of  life.  Caesar  never  mounted  his  chariot,  it  is 
said,  that  he  did  not  repeat  a  formula  three  times  to 
avert  dangers. 

A  painful  exactness  in  the  use  of  words  was  required 
in  the  offering  of  a  Roman  prayer.  A  syllable  left  out 
or  a  word  mispronounced,  or  the  intervention  of  any 
disturbing  cause  of  evil  import,  would  destroy  the 
merit  of  the  formula.  The  Romans  believed  that  the 
voice  of  prayer  should  not  be  interrupted  by  noises  or 
bad  omens.  And  that  the  sound  of  evil  augury  might 
not  be  heard  at  the  moment  of  supplication,  they  were 
in  the  habit  of  covering  their  ears.  Musical  notes  of 
favorable   import  were   not  objectionable,    and    fre- 


2o6  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

quently  flutes  were  played  while  the  prayer  was  being 
ofifered  to  chase  away  disturbing  sounds.  At  other 
times,  the  priests  had  special  assistants  whose  duty  it 
was  to  maintain  silence  during  the  recital  of  the  for- 
mula. But,  if  the  ceremony  was  successful,  if  the  lan- 
guage had  been  correctly  pronounced,  without  the 
omission  or  addition  of  a  word;  if  all  disturbing  causes 
and  things  of  evil  omen  had  been  alienated  from  the 
services,  then  the  granting  of  the  prayer  was  assured, 
regardless  of  the  motive  or  intention  of  the  person 
praying.  It  should  be  remembered  that  piety  and 
faith  were  not  necessary  to  the  efficacy  of  Roman 
prayer.  Ceremonial  precision,  rather  than  purity  of 
heart,  was  pleasing  to  the  Roman  gods.  A  peculiar 
element  entered  into  the  religions  of  both  the  ancient 
Romans  and  the  ancient  Hebrews.  It  was  the  prin- 
ciple of  contract  in  an  almost  purely  juristic  sense. 
Both  the  Romans  and  the  Hebrews  believed  that  if 
the  divine  law  was  obeyed  to  the  letter,  their  deities 
were  under  the  strictest  obligation  to  grant  their 
petitions. 

Under  the  Roman  form  of  worship,  a  peculiar  act 
of  supplication  was  performed  by  the  suppliant  who 
kissed  his  right  hand,  turned  round  in  a  circle  by  the 
right,  and  then  seated  himself  upon  the  ground.  This 
was  done  in  obedience  to  one  of  the  laws  of  Numa. 
The  circular  movement  of  the  earth,  it  was  thought, 
was  symbolized  by  the  turning  round  in  a  circle;  and 
the  sitting  down  indicated  that  the  suppliant  was  con- 
fidant that  his  prayer  would  be  granted. 

The  Romans  believed  that  prayers  were  more  effica- 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  1207 

cious  if  said  in  the  immediate  presence  and,  if  possi- 
ble, in  actual  contact  with  the  image  of  the  god.  The 
doorkeepers  of  the  temple  were  frequently  besieged  by 
suppliants  who  begged  to  be  admitted  into  the  inclo- 
sures  of  the  sacred  places  where  they  might  pray  to  the 
deity  on  the  spot. 

On  account  of  the  vast  numbers  of  the  gods,  the 
Romans  were  sometimes  at  a  loss  to  know  which  one  to 
address  in  prayer.  Unlike  the  Greeks,  they  had  no 
preferences  among  their  deities.  Each  was  suppli- 
cated in  his  turn  according  to  the  business  in  hand. 
But  they  were  frequently  in  doubt  as  to  the  name  of 
the  god  who  had  control  of  the  subject-matter  of  their 
petitions.  In  such  cases,  the  practical  genius  of  the 
Roman  people  served  them  well.  They  had  recourse 
to  several  expedients  which  they  believed  would  insure 
success.  When  in  doubt  as  to  the  particular  divinity 
which  they  should  address  in  supplication,  they  would, 
at  times,  invoke,  in  the  first  place,  Janus,  the  god  of  all 
good  beginnings,  the  doorkeeper,  so  to  speak,  of  the 
pantheon,  who,  it  was  believed,  would  deliver  the 
prayer  to  the  proper  deity.  At  other  times,  in  such 
perplexity,  they  would  address  their  petitions  to  a 
group  of  gods  in  which  they  knew  the  right  one  was 
bound  to  be.  It  sometimes  happened  that  they  did  not 
know  whether  the  deity  to  be  supplicated  was  a  god  or 
goddess.  In  such  an  emergency,  they  expressed  them- 
selves very  cautiously,  using  the  alternative  proviso: 
"  Be  thou  god  or  goddess."  At  other  times,  in  cases  of 
extreme  doubt,  they  prayed  to  all  the  deities  at  once; 
and  often,  in  fits  of  desperation,  they  dismissed  the 


2o8  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

entire  pantheon  and  addressed  their  prayers  to  the 
Unknown  God. 

Another  mode  of  propitiating  the  gods  was  by  sacri- 
fice. Animals,  the  fruits  of  the  fields,  and  even  human 
beings  were  devoted  to  this  purpose.  In  the  matter  of 
sacrifice,  the  practical  genius  of  the  Roman  people  was 
again  forcibly  manifested.  They  were  tactful  enough 
to  adapt  the  sacrifice  to  the  whims  and  tastes  of  the 
gods.  A  provision  of  the  Twelve  Tables  was  that 
"  such  beasts  should  be  used  for  victims  as  were  be- 
coming and  agreeable  to  each  deity."  The  framers  of 
these  laws  evidently  believed  that  the  gods  had  keenly 
whetted  appetites  and  discriminating  tastes  in  the  mat- 
ter of  animal  sacrifice.  Jupiter  Capitolinus  was 
pleased  with  an  offering  of  white  cattle  with  gilded 
horns,  but  would  not  accept  rams  or  bulls.  Mars, 
Neptune  and  Apollo  were,  on  the  other  hand,  highly 
delighted  with  the  sacrifice  of  bulls.  It  was  also 
agreeable  to  Mars  to  have  horses,  cocks,  and  asses  sac- 
rificed in  his  honor.  An  intact  heifer  was  always 
pleasing  to  the  goddess  Minerva.  A  white  cow  with 
moon-shaped  horns  delighted  Juno  Calendaris.  A 
sow  in  young  was  sacrificed  to  the  great  Mother;  and 
doves  and  sparrows  to  Venus.  Unweaned  puppies 
were  offered  as  victims  of  expiation  to  the  Lares  and 
Penates.  Black  bulls  were  usually  slaughtered  to  ap- 
pease the  infernal  gods. 

The  most  careful  attention  was  given  to  the  selection 
of  the  victims  of  sacrifice  from  the  flocks  and  herds. 
Any  serious  physical  defect  in  the  animal  disqualified. 
A  calf  was  not  fit  for  slaughter  if  its  tail  did  not  reach 


GR.ECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  209 

to  the  joint  of  the  leg.  Sheep  with  cloven  tongues  and 
black  ears  were  rejected.  Black  spots  on  a  white  ox 
had  to  be  rubbed  white  with  chalk  before  the  beast  was 
available  for  sacrifice. 

Not  only  animals  were  sacrificed,  but  human  beings 
as  well,  to  appease  the  wrath  of  the  gods  in  time  of 
awful  calamity.  In  early  Roman  history,  gray-headed 
men  of  sixty  years  were  hurled  from  the  Pons  Sublicius 
into  the  Tiber  as  an  offering  to  Saturn.  In  the  year 
227  B.C.,  the  pontiffs  discovered  from  the  Sibylline 
books  that  the  Gauls  and  Greeks  were  to  attack  and 
capture  the  city.  To  fulfill  the  prophecy  and,  at  the 
same  time  to  avert  the  danger,  the  senate  decreed  that 
a  man  and  woman  of  each  of  these  two  nations  should 
be  buried  alive  in  the  forum  as  a  form  of  constructive 
possession.  This  was  nothing  but  a  human  sacrifice 
to  the  gods. 

Again,  two  of  Cesar's  soldiers,  who  had  participated 
in  a  riot  in  Rome,  were  taken  to  the  Campus  Martius 
and  sacrificed  to  Mars  by  the  pontiffs  and  the  Flamen 
Martialis.  Their  heads  were  fixed  upon  the  Regia,  as 
was  the  case  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  October-horse.  As 
an  oblation  to  Neptune,  Sextus  Pompeius  had  live  men 
and  horses  thrown  into  the  sea  at  the  time  when  a  great 
storm  was  destroying  the  fleet  of  the  enemy. 

A  near  approach  to  human  sacrifice  was  the  custom 
of  sprinkling  the  statue  of  Jupiter  Latiaris  with  the 
blood  of  gladiators.  A  priest  caught  the  blood  as  it 
gushed  from  the  wound  of  the  dying  gladiator,  and 
dashed  it  while  still  warm  at  the  face  of  the  image  of 
the  god. 


2IO  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Suetonius  tells  us  that  after  the  capture  of  Perugia, 
Augustus  Caesar  slaughtered  three  hundred  prisoners 
as  an  expiatory  sacrifice  to  Julius  Caesar. 

Thus  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era,  human 
beings  were  still  being  sacrificed  on  the  altars  of  super- 
stition. 

Ascertaining  the  Will  of  the  Gods. — Various  meth- 
ods were  employed  by  the  Romans  in  ascertaining  the 
will  of  the  gods.  Chief  among  these  were  the  art  of 
divination  from  the  flight  of  birds  and  from  the  in- 
spection of  the  entrails  of  animals;  also  from  the  ob- 
servation of  lightning  and  the  interpretation  of 
dreams.  The  Romans  had  no  oracles  like  those  of  the 
Greeks,  but  they  frequently  sent  messengers  to  consult 
the  Delphic  oracle. 

Nothing  is  stranger  or  more  disgusting  in  all  the 
range  of  religious  history  than  the  practice  of  the 
Roman  haruspices.  That  the  ancient  masters  of  the 
world  should  have  felt  themselves  obliged  to  search  in 
the  belly  of  a  beast  for  the  will  of  Jupiter  is  one  of  the 
abominable  enigmas  of  Pagan  superstition.  The  in- 
spection of  the  entrails  of  victims  was  a  Tuscan 
science,  early  imported  from  Etruria,  and  naturalized 
at  Rome.  Tuscan  haruspices  accompanied  the  Roman 
armies  everywhere,  and  determined  by  their  skill 
whether  a  battle  should  be  fought  or  a  retreat  ordered. 
When  it  was  doubtful  what  to  do,  an  animal  was 
slaughtered,  and  the  heart,  lungs,  liver,  tongue,  spleen, 
kidneys  and  caul  were  closely  inspected  with  the  aid 
of  a  small  needle  or  knife.  Various  conditions  and  ap- 
pearances of  these  parts  were  considered  as  signs  of 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  211 

the  pleasure  or  disfavor  of  the  gods.  Largely  devel- 
oped veins  on  the  adverse  side  were  considered  tokens 
of  extreme  displeasure  and  an  indication  of  pending 
misfortune.  It  was  also  considered  gravely  ominous 
when  the  head  or  protuberance  in  the  right  lobe  of  the 
liver  was  wanting.  The  Romans  were  too  practical 
and  indomitable,  however,  to  allow  a  single  bad  omen 
to  frustrate  a  great  enterprise.  If  the  inspection  of  the 
entrails  of  the  first  animal  was  not  favorable,  they 
slaughtered  still  others  until  a  propitious  sign  was  ob- 
served. At  times,  a  score  of  beasts  were  slain  before 
the  gods  gave  assent  to  the  enterprise  in  hand. 

Divination  from  the  flight  and  notes  of  birds  was 
another  method  employed  by  the  Romans  in  finding 
out  the  will  of  the  gods.  And  it  may  be  remarked  that 
this  was  certainly  a  more  rational  and  elevated  form 
of  divination  than  that  which  we  have  just  discussed. 
An  eagle  swooping  down  from  the  skies  would  cer- 
tainly be  a  more  natural  and  pleasing  suggestion  of 
the  thoughts  and  attributes  of  Jove  than  the  filthy  in- 
terior of  the  entrails  of  a  bull. 

The  elements  of  divination  from  the  flight  of  birds 
were  derived  either  from  the  significant  notes  and 
sounds  of  their  voices,  or  from  the  manner  in  which 
their  wings  were  flapped  or  their  flight  conducted.  If 
the  bird  flew  from  the  left  to  the  right  of  the  augur, 
it  was  considered  a  happy  omen;  if  the  flight  was  in 
the  opposite  direction,  the  enterprise  in  hand  had  to 
be  abandoned  or  at  least  delayed.  Augury  by  flight 
was  usually  applied  to  eagles  and  vultures,  while 
woodpeckers,    ravens,    crows,    and    screech   owls    an- 


212  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

nounced  the  will  of  the  gods  by  note.  The  direction 
from  which  the  note  came,  usually  determined  the 
nature  of  the  augury.  But,  in  the  case  of  the  screech 
owl,  the  sounds  were  always  of  evil  omen,  from  what- 
ever side  they  came.  And  those  who  have  been  so  un- 
fortunate as  to  hear  its  mournful,  desolate  and  God- 
forsaken tones  will  not  be  disposed  to  censure  either 
the  Romans  or  their  gods  for  the  low  esteem  in  which 
they  held  this  bird. 

Again,  it  was  a  principle  of  Roman  augury  that 
auspices  could  be  neutralized  or  overcome.  If  a  crow 
furnished  an  omen,  and  an  eagle  gave  another  which 
was  opposed  to  it,  the  first  sign  was  wiped  out,  because 
the  eagle  was  a  larger  and  nobler  bird  than  the  crow. 
And,  as  in  the  case  of  prayer,  so  also  in  the  matter  of 
the  auspices,  a  disturbing  sound  would  destroy  the 
effect  of  the  augury.  The  squeak  or  cry  of  a  mouse 
would  destroy  a  message  from  Jupiter  conveyed  in  the 
scream  of  an  eagle. 

But  the  most  potent  manifestation  of  the  divine 
mind,  among  the  ancient  Romans,  was  that  derived 
from  thunder  and  lightning.  Lightning  to  them  was 
the  sovereign  expression  of  the  will  of  the  gods;  and 
a  single  flash  blotted  out  every  other  sign  and  token. 
It  was  an  irrevocable  presage  and  could  not  be  re- 
motely modified  or  evaded.  It  came  directly  from  the 
hand  of  the  deity  and  was  an  emphatic  revelation  of 
the  divine  mind.  All  places  struck  by  lightning  were 
considered  sacred  and  were  consecrated  to  the  god  who 
had  sent  the  bolt.  Upon  the  spot  where  it  fell,  an  altar 
was  raised  and  an  inclosure  formed.     The  service  of 


GRi^CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  213 

consecration  consisted  in  burying  the  lightning,  that 
is,  in  restoring  the  earth  thrown  up  by  it,  and  in  the 
sacrifice  of  a  two-year-old  sheep.  All  such  places  were 
considered  hallowed  spots  and  it  was  impious  and  sac- 
rilegious to  touch  them  or  even  look  at  them.  The 
gods  deprived  of  reason  those  who  destroyed  the  altars 
and  sacred  inclosures  of  these  places. 

These  various  methods  of  ascertaining  the  will  of 
the  deities  were  employed  in  every  important  transac- 
tion of  Roman  public  and  private  life.  At  times,  all 
of  them  cooperated  on  occasions  of  vast  import  and 
when  the  lives  and  destinies  of  great  men  were 
involved. 

The  following  single  paragraph  from  Suetonius 
contains  allusions  to  all  the  modes  of  divination  which 
we  have  just  discussed: 

After  the  death  of  Caesar,  upon  his  return  from  Apol- 
lonia  as  he  was  entering  the  city,  on  a  sudden,  in  a  clear  and 
bright  sky  a  circle  resembling  the  rainbow  surrounded  the 
body  of  the  sun;  and  immediately  afterwards,  the  tomb  of 
Julia,  CcEsar's  daughter,  was  struck  by  lightning.  In  his 
first  consulship  whilst  he  was  observing  the  auguries,  twelve 
vultures  presented  themselves  as  they  had  done  to  Romulus. 
And  when  he  offered  sacrifice,  the  livers  of  all  the  victims 
were  folded  Inward  In  the  lower  part;  a  circumstance  which 
was  regarded  by  those  present,  who  had  skill  In  things  of 
that  nature,  as  an  indubitable  prognostic  of  great  and  won- 
derful fortune.^ 

The  interpretation  of  dreams  also  formed  an  Im- 
portant part  in  the  determination  of  the  will  of  the 
gods,  not  only  among  the  Romans,  but  among  all  an- 

1  Suetonius,  "Cassar  Augustus,"  Chap.  XCV. 


214  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

cient  nations.  The  literature  of  antiquity,  both  sacred 
and  profane,  is  filled  with  dreams.  Whether  the  biog- 
rapher is  Matthew  or  Plutarch,  dreams  appear  on  the 
pages  of  both.  Chrysippus  made  a  collection  of 
prophetical  dreams  in  order  to  explain  their  meaning. 
Both  Galen  and  Hippocrates  believed  that  dreams 
were  sent  by  the  gods  to  men.  Artemidorus  wrote  a 
treatise  on  the  subject,  and  in  it  he  assures  us  that  it 
was  compiled  at  the  express  bidding  and  under  the 
direction  of  Apollo  himself. 

It  was  in  a  dream  that  Joseph  was  warned  not  to  put 
away  Mary  his  wife.^  It  was  also  in  a  dream  that  an 
angel  voice  warned  him  to  flee  into  Egypt  with  the 
infant  Savior  to  escape  the  murderous  designs  of 
Herod. ^  Nearly  every  great  event,  both  in  Greek  and 
Roman  history,  seems  to  have  been  heralded  or  at- 
tended by  dreams.  The  following  account  is  given  by 
Suetonius  of  the  dreams  of  Quintus  Catulus  and  Mar- 
cus Cicero  presaging  the  reign  of  Augustus: 

Quintus  Catulus  had  a  dream,  for  two  nights  successively 
after  his  dedication  of  the  Capitol.  The  first  night  he  dreamt 
that  Jupiter  out  of  several  boys  of  the  order  of  the  nobility 
who  were  playing  about  his  altar,  selected  one,  Into  whose 
bosom  he  put  the  public  seal  of  the  commonwealth,  which  he 
held  In  his  hand;  but  In  his  vision  the  next  night,  he  saw  In 
the  bosom  of  Jupiter  Capltollnus,  the  same  boy;  whom  he 
ordered  to  be  removed,  but  It  was  forbidden  by  the  God,  who 
declared  that  It  must  be  brought  up  to  become  the  guardian 
of  the  state.  The  next  day,  meeting  Augustus,  with  whom 
till  that  hour  he  had  not  the  least  acquaintance,  and  looking 
at  him  with  admiration,  he  said  he  was  extremely  like  the 
boy  he  had  seen  in  his  dream.     Some  gave  a  different  ac- 

1  Matt.  i.  20.  2  Matt.  ii.  13. 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  215 

count  of  Catulus's  first  dream,  namely  that  Jupiter,  upon 
several  noble  lads  requesting  of  him  that  they  might  have  a 
guardian,  had  pointed  to  one  amongst  them,  to  whom  they 
were  to  prefer  their  requests;  and  putting  his  fingers  to  the 
boy's  mouth  to  kiss,  he  afterwards  applied  them  to  his  own. 
Marcus  Cicero,  as  he  was  attending  Caius  Caesar  to  the 
Capitol,  happened  to  be  telling  some  of  his  friends  a  dream 
which  he  had  the  preceding  night,  in  which  he  saw  a  comely 
youth  let  down  from  heaven  by  a  golden  chain,  who  stood 
at  the  door  of  the  Capitol,  and  had  a  whip  put  into  his 
hands  by  Jupiter.  And  immediately  upon  sight  of  Augus- 
tus, who  had  been  sent  for  by  his  uncle  Caesar  to  the  sacrifice, 
and  was  as  yet  perfectly  unknown  to  most  of  the  company, 
he  affirmed  that  it  was  the  very  boy  he  had  seen  In  his  dream. 
When  he  assumed  the  manly  toga,  his  senatorian  tunic  be- 
coming loose  in  the  seam  on  each  side,  fell  at  his  feet.  Some 
would  have  this  to  forebode,  that  the  order  of  which  that 
was  the  badge  of  distinction,  would  some  time  or  other  be 
subject  to  him.^ 

Omens  also  played  an  important  role  in  molding  the 
destiny  of  the  Roman  state.  In  his  "  Life  of  Caesar 
Augustus,"  Suetonius  says: 

Some  signs  and  omens  he  regarded  as  infallible.  If  In 
the  morning,  his  shoe  was  put  on  wrong,  the  left  instead  of 
the  right,  that  boded  some  disaster.  If  when  he  commenced 
a  long  journey,  by  land  or  sea,  there  happened  to  fall  a 
mizzling  rain,  he  held  it  to  be  a  good  sign  of  a  speedy  and 
happy  return.  He  was  much  affected  likewise  with  anything 
out  of  the  common  course  of  nature.  A  palm-tree  which 
chanced  to  grow  up  between  some  stones  in  the  court  of  his 
house,  he  transplanted  into  a  court  where  the  images  of  the 
Household  Gods  were  placed,  and  took  all  possible  care  to 
make  it  thrive.  In  the  island  of  Capri,  some  decayed 
branches  of  an  old  ilex,  which  hung  drooping  to  the  ground, 
recovered  themselves  upon  his  arrival;  at  which  he  was  so 

1  Suetonius,  "Caesar  Augustus,"  Chap.  XCIV. 


2i6  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

delighted,  that  he  made  an  exchange  with  the  Republic  of 
Naples,  of  the  island  of  Ischia,  for  that  of  Capri.  He  like- 
wise observed  certain  days;  as  never  to  go  from  home  the 
day  after  the  Numdinae,  nor  to  begin  any  serious  business 
upon  the  nones;  avoiding  nothing  else  In  it,  as  he  writes  to 
Tiberius,  than  its  unlucky  name.^ 

'Any  unusual  happening  and  all  the  striking  phe- 
nomena of  nature  were  regarded  by  the  Romans  as 
prodigies  or  omens  indicative  of  the  will  of  the  gods. 
The  nature  of  the  occurrence  indicated  the  pleasure 
or  the  wrath  of  the  deity.  An  eclipse  of  the  sun  and 
the  moon,  a  shooting  star,  a  rainbow  of  peculiar  color, 
showers  of  stones  and  ashes,  were  regarded  as  awful 
prodigies,  and  generally  threw  the  Roman  Senate  into 
a  panic.  On  such  occasions,  the  pontifical  college 
called  a  hurried  meeting.  The  augurs  and  haruspices 
were  summoned  to  immediate  duty;  and  everything 
was  done  to  ascertain  the  will  of  the  gods  and  to  do 
their  bidding.  A  two-headed  snake  or  a  three-legged 
chicken,  such  as  we  frequently  see  to-day,  would  have 
shaken  the  whole  Roman  religious  system  to  the  center. 

Such  was  the  credulity  of  the  Roman  people,  that 
the  most  improbable  and  impossible  stories,  mere  ru- 
mors born  of  lying  imposture,  were  heard  and  be- 
lieved. "  Idols  shed  tears  or  sweated  blood,  oxen 
spoke,  men  were  changed  into  women,  cocks  into  hens, 
lakes  or  brooks  ran  with  blood  or  milk,  mice  nibbled 
at  the  golden  vessels  of  the  temples,  a  swarm  of  bees 
lighted  on  a  temple  or  in  a  public  place."  All  such 
alleged  occurrences  required  sacrifices  and  expiatory 

^  Suetonius,  "Caesar  Augustus,"  Chap.  XCII. 


GRi^CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  217 

rites  to  conquer  the  fury  and  regain  the  favor  of  the 
gods. 

Fall  of  the  Early  Roman  Religion. — At  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Christian  era,  the  old  Roman  religion, 
founded  upon  the  institutions  of  Numa,  had  almost 
come  to  an  end.  The  invasion  of  Italy  by  the  Greek 
gods  was  the  first  serious  assault  upon  the  early  Roman 
faith.  The  elegant  refinement  and  fascinating  influ- 
ence of  Greek  literature,  philosophy  and  sculpture, 
had  incrusted  with  a  gorgeous  coating  the  rude  forms 
of  the  primitive  Roman  worship.  But,  as  time  ad- 
vanced, the  old  gods  grew  stale  and  new  deities  were 
sought.  The  human  soul  could  not  forever  feed  upon 
myths,  however  brilliant  and  bewitching.  The  myste- 
rious and  melancholy  rites  of  Isis  came  to  establish 
themselves  by  the  side  of  those  of  Janus  and  ^^scula- 
pius.  The  somber  qualities  of  the  Egyptian  worship 
seemed  to  commend  it.  Even  so  good  and  grand  a  man 
as  Marcus  Aurelius  avowed  himself  an  adorer  of 
Serapis;  and,  during  a  sojourn  in  Egypt,  he  is  reported 
to  have  conducted  himself  like  an  Egyptian  citizen 
and  philosopher  while  strolling  through  the  temples 
and  sacred  groves  on  the  banks  of  the  Nile.^ 

The  effect  of  the  repeated  changes  from  one  form 
of  religious  faith  to  another  was  to  gradually  destroy 
the  moral  fiber  of  Roman  worship  and  to  shatter 
Roman  faith  in  the  existence  and  stability  of  the  gods. 
The  first  manifestation  of  that  disintegration  which 
finally  completely  undermined  and  destroyed  the  tem- 
ple of  Roman  worship  was  the  familiarity  with  which 

^  Dollinger,  "The  Gentile  and  the  Jew,"  vol.  n".  p.  185. 


2i8  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

the  Romans  treated  their  gods.  Familiarity  with  gods, 
as  with  men,  breeds  contempt.  A  striking  peculiarity 
of  both  the  Roman  and  Greek  mythologies  was  the  in- 
timate relationship  that  existed  between  gods  and 
human  beings.  Sometimes  it  took  the  form  of  personal 
intercourse  from  which  heroes  sprang,  as  was  the  case 
with  Jupiter  and  Alcmene,  of  whom  Hercules  was 
born.  At  other  times,  deities  and  human  beings  trav- 
eled together  on  long  voyages,  as  was  the  case  with 
Minerva  and  Telemachus  on  their  trip  to  the  island 
of  Calypso.  These  were  instances  of  what  the  Greeks 
regarded  as  that  natural  and  sympathetic  relationship 
that  not  only  could  but  should  exist  between  them  and 
their  divinities.  But  in  time  the  Romans  entered  upon 
a  career  of  frivolous  fellowship  and  familiarity  with 
their  gods  which  destroyed  their  mutual  respect,  and 
hastened  the  dissolution  of  the  bonds  that  had  hitherto 
held  them  together.  They  began  to  treat  their  divini- 
ties as  men,  deserving  of  honor  indeed,  but  neverthe- 
less human  beings  with  all  the  frailties  and  attributes 
of  mortals.  "  Arnobius  speaks  of  morning  serenades 
sung  with  an  accompaniment  of  fifes,  as  a  kind  of 
reveille  to  the  sleeping  gods,  and  of  an  evening  salu- 
tation, in  which  leave  was  taken  of  the  deity  with  the 
wishing  him  a  good  night's  rest." 

The  Lectisternia  or  banquets  of  the  gods  were  ordi- 
nary religious  functions  to  which  the  deities  themselves 
were  invited.  These  feasts  were  characterized  at  times 
by  extreme  exclusiveness.  It  was  not  right,  thought 
the  Romans,  to  degrade  and  humiliate  the  greater  gods 
by  seating  them  at  the  banquet  board  with  smaller 


GRi^CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  219 

ones.  So,  a  right  royal  fete  was  annually  arranged  in 
the  Capitol  in  honor  of  Jupiter,  Juno,  and  Minerva. 
The  statue  of  the  great  god  was  placed  reclining  on  a 
pillow;  and  the  images  of  the  two  goddesses  were 
seated  upon  chairs  near  him.  At  other  times,  the  func- 
tions were  more  democratic,  and  great  numbers  of  the 
gods  were  admitted,  as  well  as  a  few  select  and  distin- 
guished mortals.  On  such  occasions,  the  images  of  the 
gods  were  placed  in  pairs  on  cushions  near  the  table. 
The  Romans  believed  that  the  spirit  of  the  god  ac- 
tually inhabited  or  occupied  the  statue.  This  we  learn 
from  Lucian.  The  happy  mortals  who  were  fortunate 
enough  to  be  present  at  the  banquet,  actually  believed 
that  they  were  seated  among  the  gods.  Livy  tells  us 
that  once  the  gods  turned  on  their  cushions  and  re- 
versed themselves  at  the  table,  and  that  mice  then  came 
and  devoured  the  meats.^ 

The  Roman  historians  very  seriously  inform  us  that 
special  invitations  were  extended  the  gods  to  attend 
these  banquets.  They  fail  to  tell  us,  however,  whether 
R.S.V.P.  or  any  other  directions  were  inserted  in  the 
cards  of  invitation.  We  are  left  completely -in  the 
dark  as  to  the  formality  employed  by  the  deities  to 
indicate  their  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  proffered 
honor. 

The  purpose  of  the  Lectisternia  was  at  first  undoubt- 
edly to  promote  hospitality  and  fellowship,  and  to  con- 
ciliate the  good  will  of  the  gods.  But  finally  such 
intimacy  ripened  into  contempt  and  all  kinds  of  inde- 
cencies  began   to   be   practiced    against   the    deities. 

1  Liv.  xl.  59. 


220  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

Speaking  of  the  actions  of  certain  Romans,  Seneca 
says:  "One  sets  a  rival  deity  by  the  side  of  another 
god;  another  shows  Jupiter  the  time  of  day;  this  one 
acts  the  beadle,  the  other  the  anointer,  pretending  by 
gesture  to  rub  in  the  ointment.  A  number  of  coiffeurs 
attend  upon  Juno  and  Minerva,  and  make  pretence  of 
curling  with  their  fingers,  not  only  at  a  distance  from 
their  images,  but  in  the  actual  temple.  Some  hold  the 
looking-glass  to  them;  some  solicit  the  gods  to  stand 
security  for  them;  while  others  display  briefs  before 
them,  and  instruct  them  in  their  law  cases."  This  rude 
conduct  was  practiced  by  men.  But  Seneca,  continu- 
ing, says:  "  Women,  too,  take  their  seats  at  the  Capitol 
pretending  that  Jupiter  is  enamored  of  them,  and  not 
allowing  themselves  to  be  intimidated  by  Juno's  pres- 
ence." ^ 

Roman  Skepticism. — Of  contempt  of  the  gods, 
which  was  due  to  many  causes,  skepticism  was  born. 
The  deities  of  every  race  had  been  brought  to  Rome 
and  placed  in  the  pantheon;  and  there,  gazing  into 
each  other's  faces,  had  destroyed  each  other.  The  mul- 
tiplicity of  the  gods  was  the  chief  agency  in  the  de- 
struction of  the  Roman  faith  and  ritual.  The  yoke 
and  burden  of  endless  ceremonials  had  been  borne  for 
centuries  and  were  now  producing  intolerable  irrita- 
tion and  nauseating  disgust.  The  natural  freedom  of 
the  soul  was  in  open  rebellion  and  revolt  against  the 
hollow  forms  and  rigid  exactions  of  the  Roman  ritual. 
The  eagle  of  the  human  intellect  was  already  prepar- 
ing to  soar  above  the  clouds  of  superstition.  Cicero 
1  Ap.  Aug.  C.  D.  VI.  2. 


GR.ECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  221 

gave  expression  to  the  prevalent  sentiments  of  educated 
Romans  of  his  day  when  he  wrote: 

I  thought  I  should  be  doing  an  immense  benefit  both 
to  myself  and  to  my  countrymen  if  I  could  entirely  eradi- 
cate all  superstitious  errors.  Nor  is  there  any  fear  that  true 
religion  can  be  endangered  by  the  demolition  of  this  super- 
stition; for  as  this  religion  which  is  united  with  the  knowl- 
edge of  nature  is  to  be  propagated,  so,  also,  are  all  the  roots 
of  superstition  to  be  destroyed;  for  that  presses  upon  and 
pursues  and  persecutes  you  wherever  you  turn  yourself, 
whether  you  consult  a  diviner  or  have  heard  an  omen  or 
have  immolated  a  victim,  or  beheld  a  flight  of  birds; 
whether  you  have  seen  a  Chalda^an  or  a  soothsayer;  if  it 
lightens  or  thunders,  or  if  anything  is  struck  by  lightning; 
if  any  kind  of  prodigy  occurs;  some  of  which  things  must 
be  frequently  coming  to  pass,  so  that  you  can  never  rise  with 
a  tranquil  mind. 

The  completion  of  Roman  conquest  in  the  reign  of 
Augustus  was  another  potent  influence  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  old  Roman  religion.  The  chief  employ- 
ment of  the  Roman  gods  had  ever  been  as  servants  of 
the  Roman  state  in  the  extension  of  the  Roman  empire. 
Their  services  were  now  no  longer  needed  in  this  re- 
gard, and  their  ancient  worshipers  were  ready  to  repu- 
diate and  dismiss  them.  The  Hebrew  characteristic  of 
humility  and  resignation  in  the  presence  of  divine 
displeasure  was  not  a  Roman  trait.  The  ancient  mas- 
ters of  the  world  reserved  the  right  to  object  and  even 
to  rebel  when  the  gods  failed  to  do  their  duty  after 
appropriate  prayers  had  been  said  and  proper  ceremo- 
nies had  been  performed.  Sacrilege,  as  the  result  of 
disappointment,  was  a  frequent  occurrence  in  Roman 


Ill  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

religious  life.  Bitter  defiance  of  the  heavenly  powers 
sometimes  followed  a  defeat  in  battle  or  a  failure  in 
diplomacy.  Augustus,  as  supreme  pontiff,  chastised 
Neptune,  the  god  of  the  sea,  because  he  lost  his  fleet 
in  a  storm,  by  forbidding  the  image  of  the  god  to  be 
carried  in  the  procession  of  the  next  Circensian  games. 
The  emperor  Julian  was  regarded  as  a  most  pious  po- 
tentate, but  he  did  not  hesitate  to  defy  the  gods  when 
he  became  displeased.  At  the  time  of  the  Parthian 
war,  he  was  preparing  to  sacrifice  ten  select  and  beau- 
tiful bulls  to  Mars  the  Avenger,  when  nine  of  them 
suddenly  lay  down  while  being  led  to  the  altar,  and 
the  tenth  broke  his  band.  The  fury  of  the  monarch 
was  aroused,  and  he  swore  by  Jupiter  that  he  would 
not  again  offer  a  sacrifice  to  Mars.^  Claudius,  the 
commander  of  the  Roman  fleet  at  Drepanum,  ordered 
the  sacred  pullets  to  be  thrown  into  the  sea  because 
they  would  not  eat.  When  Germanicus  was  sick  in 
Asia,  his  devoted  admirers  offered  frequent  prayers  to 
the  gods  for  his  recovery.  When  the  report  of  his 
death  reached  Rome,  the  temples  of  the  unaccommo- 
dating deities  were  stoned,  and  their  altars  were  over- 
turned.''^ 

The  same  feeling  of  angry  resentment  and  defiance 
may  be  discerned  in  inscriptions  on  the  graves  of  rela- 
tives prematurely  snatched  away  by  death.  An  epi- 
taph on  the  monument  of  a  child  of  five  years  was  this: 
"  To  the  unrighteous  gods  who  robbed  me  of  my  life." 
Another  on  the  tombstone  of  a  maiden  of  twenty, 
named  Procope,   read  as   follows:  "I   lift  my  hand 

1  DoUinger,  vol,  ii.  p.  183.  2  Suetonius,  "Caligula,"  Chap.  V. 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  223 

against  the  god  who  has  deprived  me  of  my  innocent 
existence."  ^ 

The  soil  of  familiarity,  contempt  and  sacrilege 
which  we  have  just  described,  was  most  fertile  ground 
for  the  growth  of  that  rank  and  killing  skepticism 
which  was  destroying  the  vitals  of  the  Roman  faith  at 
the  time  of  Christ.  This  unbelief,  it  is  true,  was  not 
universal.  At  the  time  of  the  birth  of  the  Savior,  the 
Roman  masses  still  believed  in  the  gods  and  goddesses 
of  the  Greek  and  Roman  mythologies.  Superstition 
was  especially  prevalent  in  the  country  districts  of  both 
Greece  and  Italy.  Pausanias,  who  lived  about  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  of  the  Christian  era,  tells 
us  that  in  his  time  the  olden  legends  of  god  and  hero 
were  still  firmly  believed  by  the  common  people.  As 
he  traveled  through  Greece,  the  cypresses  of  Alcmaeon, 
the  stones  of  Amphion,  and  the  ashes  of  the  funeral 
piles  of  Niobe's  children  were  pointed  out  to  him.  In 
Phocis,  he  found  the  belief  still  existing  that  larks  laid 
no  eggs  there  because  of  the  sin  of  Tereus.^  Plutarch, 
who  lived  about  the  middle  of  the  first  century  of  our 
era,  tells  us  that  the  people  were  still  modeling  the 
gods  in  w^ax  and  clay,  as  well  as  carving  them  in  mar- 
ble and  were  worshiping  them  in  contempt  and  de- 
fiance of  philosophers  and  statesmen.^  But  this  credul- 
ity was  limited  to  the  ignorant  and  unthinking  masses. 
The  intellectual  leaders  of  both  the  Greek  and  Roman 
races  had  long  been  in  revolt  against  the  absurdity  and 
vulgarity  of  the  myths  which  formed  the  foundation 

1  Mabillon,  "Iter.  Ital."  p.  77.  2  Pausanias,  ix.  17.  I. 

3  De  Superst.  6. 


224  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

of  their  popular  faiths.  The  purity  and  majesty  of  the 
soul  felt  keenly  the  insult  and  outrage  of  enforced 
obedience  to  the  obscene  divinities  that  Homer  and 
Hesiod  had  handed  down  to  them.  Five  hundred 
years  before  Christ,  Pindar,  the  greatest  lyric  poet  of 
Greece,  had  denounced  the  vulgar  tales  told  of  the 
deities,  and  had  branded  as  blasphemous  the  story  of 
the  cannibal  feast  spread  for  the  gods  by  the  father  of 
Pelops.  Xenophanes,  also,  in  the  sixth  century  before 
Christ,  had  ridiculed  the  mythical  tales  of  the  Homeric 
poems,  and  had  called  attention  to  the  purely  human 
character  of  popular  religions.  He  had  pointed  out 
that  the  Ethiopians  painted  the  images  of  their  deities 
black,  and  gave  them  flat  noses,  in  the  likeness  of  them- 
selves; that  the  Thracians,  on  the  other  hand,  created 
their  gods  blue-eyed  and  red;  and  that,  in  general, 
every  race  had  reflected  its  own  physical  peculiarities 
in  the  creation  of  its  gods.  He  declared  it  to  be  his 
opinion  that  if  the  beasts  of  the  field  should  attempt 
to  produce  a  likeness  of  the  gods,  the  horses  would  pro- 
duce a  resemblance  of  themselves,  and  that  oxen  and 
lions  would  ascribe  to  their  own  divinities  their  own 
images  and  peculiarities. 

The  whole  structure  of  the  Roman  religion,  built 
upon  myths  and  adorned  with  fables,  was  ill  fitted  to 
stand  the  tests  of  analysis  and  criticism.  It  was  des- 
tined to  weaken  and  crumble  the  moment  it  was  sub- 
jected to  serious  rational  inquiry.  Such  inquiry  was 
inevitable  in  the  progress  of  that  soul-growth  which 
the  centuries  were  sure  to  bring.  Natural  philosophy 
and    historical    study    began    to    dissolve    the    sacred 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  225 

legends  and  to  demand  demonstration  and  proof 
where  faith  had  before  sufficed.  Skeptical  criticism 
began  to  dissect  the  formulae  of  prayer  and  to  analyze 
the  elements  of  augury  and  sacrifice.  Reason  began 
to  revolt  against  the  proposition  that  Jupiter  was  justi- 
fied in  rejecting  a  petition  because  a  syllable  had  been 
omitted  or  a  word  mispronounced.  Men  began  to  ask: 
*'  What  explanation  could  be  given  of  the  strange 
changes  of  mind  in  the  gods,  often  threatening  evil  on 
the  first  inspection  of  the  victim,  and  at  the  second 
promising  good?  How  did  it  happen  that  a  sacrifice 
to  Apollo  gave  favorable,  and  one  to  Diana  unfavor- 
able signs?  Why  did  the  Etruscan,  the  Elan,  the 
Egyptian,  and  the  Punic  inspectors  of  sacrifice  inter- 
pret the  entrails  in  an  entirely  different  manner? 
Again,  what  connection  in  nature  was  there  between 
a  fissure  in  the  liver  of  a  lamb,  and  a  trifling  advan- 
tage to  a  man,  an  inheritance  to  be  expected,  or  the 
like?  And  on  a  man's  intending  to  sacrifice,  did  a 
change,  corresponding  to  his  circumstances,  take  place 
in  the  entrails  of  the  beast;  so  that,  supposing  another 
person  had  selected  the  same  victim,  he  would  have 
found  the  liver  in  a  quite  different  condition?" 

The  gods  themselves  became  subjects  of  inspection 
and  analysis.  Their  origin  and  nature  were  studied 
historically,  and  were  also  reviewed  in  the  light  of 
natural  and  ethical  products.  Three  hundred  years 
before  Christ,  Evhemere  of  Messina  boldly  declared 
that  the  gods  were  simply  ancient  kings  deified  by 
fear  and  superstition  after  death.  Anaxagoras  sought 
to  identify  the  several  deities  with  the  forces  and  phe- 


ni6  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

nomena  of  nature,  thus  converting  the  pantheon  into 
an  observatory,  or  into  a  physical  and  chemical  labora- 
tory. Metrodorus  contended  that  the  gods  were  deifi- 
cations of  mere  abstract  ethical  precepts. 

Instances  are  recorded  in  history,  from  time  to  time, 
where  the  philosophers  attempted  to  explain  to  the 
people  the  natural  meaning  of  those  things  which  they 
believed  were  pregnant  with  supernatural  import.  On 
a  certain  occasion,  a  ram  with  one  horn  was  found  on 
the  farm  of  Pericles;  and,  from  this  circumstance,  an 
Athenian  diviner,  named  Lampon,  predicted  that  the 
party  of  the  orator  would  triumph  over  the  opposite 
faction  and  gain  control  of  the  government.  Where- 
upon Anaxagoras  dissected  the  skull,  and  demonstrated 
to  the  people  the  natural  cause  of  the  phenomenon  in 
the  peculiar  shape  of  the  animal's  brain.  But  this  re- 
former finally  suffered  the  fate  of  other  innovators, 
was  prosecuted  for  impiety,  and  was  only  saved  by  the 
influence  of  Pericles. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era,  the  religion 
of  Rome  was  privately  ridiculed  and  repudiated  by 
nearly  all  statesmen  and  philosophers  of  the  empire, 
although  they  publicly  professed  it  on  grounds  of 
public  policy.  Seneca,  a  conterhporary  of  Jesus,  ad- 
vised observance  of  rites  appointed  by  law,  on  patri- 
otic grounds.  "  All  which  things,"  he  says,  "  a  wise 
man  will  observe  as  being  commanded  by  the  laws,  but 
not  as  being  pleasing  to  the  gods."  Again  he  says: 
*'  All  that  ignoble  rabble  of  gods  which  the  supersti- 
tion of  ages  has  heaped  up,  we  shall  adore  in  such  a 
way  as  to  remember  that  their  worship  belongs  rather 


GR.ECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  227 

to  custom  than  to  reality."  Ridiculing  the  popular 
notions  of  the  matrimonial  relations  of  the  deities,  the 
same  eminent  philosopher  says:  "And  what  of  this, 
that  we  unite  the  gods  in  marriage,  and  that  not  even 
naturally,  for  we  join  brothers  and  sisters?  We  marry 
Bellona  to  Mars,  Venus  to  Vulcan,  Salacia  to  Nep- 
tune. Some  of  them  we  leave  unmarried,  as  though 
there  were  no  match  for  them,  which  is  surely  needless, 
especially  when  there  are  certain  unmarried  goddesses, 
as  Populonia,  or  Fulgora,  or  the  goddess  Rumina,  for 
whom  I  am  not  astonished  that  suitors  have  been 
wanting." 

The  prevailing  skepticism  of  the  times  is  well  illus- 
trated in  a  dialogue  which  Cicero  introduces  into  his 
first  Tusculan  Disputation  between  M,  which  may  be 
interpreted  Marcus,  and  A,  which  may  be  translated 
Auditor: 


Marcus:  Tell  me,  are  you  not  afraid  of  the  three-headed 
Cerberus  in  the  infernal  regions,  and  the  roaring 
of  Cocytus,  and  the  passage  over  Acheron,  and 
Tantalus,  dying  with  thirst,  while  water  laves 
his  chin,  and  Sisyphus, 

"  Who  sweats  with  arduous  toil  in  vain 
The  steepy  summit  of  the  mount  to  gain?" 
Perhaps  you  are  also  afraid  of  the  inexorable 
judges,  Minos  and  Rhadamanthus,  because  be- 
fore them  neither  L.  Crassus  nor  M.  Antonius 
can  defend  you,  and  because  appearing  before 
Grecian  judges,  you  will  not  be  permitted  to 
employ  Demosthenes,  but  must  plead  for  your- 
self before  a  very  great  crowd.  All  these  things, 
perhaps,  you  fear,  and  therefore  regard  death  as 
an  eternal  evil. 


228  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Auditor  :  Do  you  think  I'm  such  a  fool  as  to  give  credence 

to  such  things? 
Marcus:  What!     You  don't  believe  in  them? 
Auditor:  Truly,  not  in  the  least. 
Marcus  :  I  am  deeply  pained  to  hear  that. 
Auditor:  Why? 
Marcus:  Because,   if  occasion  had  offered,   I   could  very 

eloquently  have  denounced  them,  myself.^ 

The  contemptuous  scorn  of  the  cultivated  Romans 
of  his  time  is  frequently  revealed  in  the  w^ritings  of 
Cicero.  He  refers  more  than  once  to  the  famous  re- 
mark of  Cato,  who  said  that  he  could  not  explain  why 
the  haruspices  did  not  laugh  in  each  other's  faces  when 
they  began  to  sacrifice. 

At  this  point,  it  is  worthy  of  observation  that  the 
prevalent  unbelief  was  not  limited  to  a  simple  denial 
of  the  existence  of  mythical  divinities  and  of  the  effi- 
cacy of  the  worship  rendered  them.  Roman  skepti- 
cism sought  to  destroy  the  very  foundation  of  all  re- 
ligious belief  by  denying  not  only  the  existence  of  the 
gods,  but  also  the  immortality  of  the  soul.     Cicero  is 

^  M.    Die,  qu3Eso,  num  te  ilia  terrent?     Triceps  apud  inferos  Cerberus? 
Cocyti  fremitus  ?  travectio  Acherontis  ? 

"Mento  summam  aquam  attingens  enectus  siti, 
Tantalus,  turn  illud  quod, 

Sisiphus  versat 
Saxum  sudans  nitendo  neque  proficit  hilum," 
fortasse  etiam  inexorabiles  judices  Minor  et  Rhadamanthus?  apud  quos 
nee  te  L.  Crassus  defender,  nee  M.  Antonius;  nee,  quoniam  apud  Graccos 
judices  res  agetur,  poteris  adhibere  Demosthenen;  tibi  ipsi  pro  te  erit  maxima 
corona  causa  dicenda.  Haec  fortasse  metuis,  et  idcirco  mortem  censes 
esse  sempiternum  malum.  A.  Adeone  me  delirare  censes,  ut  ista  esse 
credam  ?  M.  An  tu  hacc  non  credis  ?  A.  Minime  vero.  M.  Male  hercule 
narras.  A.  Cur,  quaeso.  M.  Quia  disertus  esse  possem,  si  contra  ista 
dicerem. 


GRi^CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  229 

said  to  have  been  the  only  great  Roman  of  his  time 
who  believed  that  death  was  not  the  end.  Students  of 
Sallust  are  familiar  with  his  account  of  the  conspiracy 
of  Cataline  in  which  it  is  related  that  Julius  Caesar,  in 
a  speech  before  the  Roman  senate,  opposed  putting  the 
traitor  to  death  because  that  form  of  punishment  was 
too  mild,  since  beyond  the  grave  there  was  neither  joy 
nor  sorrow.^ 

Antagonism  to  the  doctrine  of  the  immortality  of 
the  soul  reached  a  melancholy  refinement  in  the 
strange  contention  that  life  after  death  was  a  cruel 
thought.  Pliny  expresses  this  sentiment  admirably 
when  he  says: 

What  folly  it  Is  to  renew  life  after  death.  Where  shall 
created  beings  find  rest  if  you  suppose  that  shades  in  hell  and 
souls  in  heaven  continue  to  have  any  feeling?  You  rob  us 
of  man's  greatest  good — death.  Let  us  rather  find  in  the 
tranquillity  which  preceded  our  existence  the  pledge  of  the 
repose  which  Is  to  follow  it. 

When  skepticism  had  destroyed  their  faith  in  the 
gods,  and  had  robbed  them  of  the  consolations  of  re- 
ligion, educated  Romans  sought  refuge  and  solace  in 
Greek  philosophy.  Stoicism  and  Epicureanism  were 
the  dominant  spiritual  and  intellectual  forces  of  the 
Roman  empire  at  the  time  of  Christ.  Epicureanism 
was  founded  by  Epicurus,  who  was  born  of  an  Athe- 
nian family  in  the  Island  of  Samos  about  342  B.C. 
Stoicism  originated  with  Zeno,  a  native  of  Cittium  in 
Cyprus,  born  about  the  year  340  B.C. 

The  original  design  of  the  system  of  Epicurus  was 

^  Sallust,  "  Bellum  Catilinarium,  50." 


230  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

to  found  a  commonwealth  of  happiness  and  goodness 
in  opposition  to  the  purely  intellectual  aristocracy  of 
Plato  and  Aristotle.  Men  were  beginning  to  tire  of 
speculation  and  dialectics,  and  to  long  for  a  philosophy 
built  upon  human  feeling  and  sensibility.  As  a  touch- 
stone of  truth,  it  was  proposed  to  substitute  sensation 
for  intellect.  Whatever  was  pleasing  to  the  natural 
and  healthful  senses  was  to  be  taken  to  be  true.  The 
pursuit  of  happiness  was  to  be  the  chief  aim  of  the 
devotees  of  this  system.  The  avoidance  of  mental  pain 
and  physical  suffering,  as  well  as  the  cultivation  of  all 
pleasurable  emotions,  were  to  be  the  leading  features 
of  every  Epicurean  programme.  In  the  beginning, 
Epicureanism  inculcated  principles  of  virtue  as  a 
means  of  happiness.  The  mode  of  life  of  the  first 
followers  of  Epicurus  was  simple  and  abstemious. 
Barley-bread  and  water  are  said  to  have  been  their 
ordinary  food  and  drink.  But  in  time  this  form  of 
philosophy  became  identified  with  the  coarsest  sensu- 
ality and  the  most  wicked  lust.  This  was  especially 
true  after  it  was  transplanted  from  Greece  to  Italy. 
The  doctrines  of  this  school  met  with  a  ready  response 
from  the  pleasure-seeking,  luxury-loving  Roman  peo- 
ple who  were  now  enriched  by  the  spoils  and  treasures 
of  a  conquered  world.  "  This  philosophy  therefore 
became  at  Rome  a  mere  school  of  self-indulgence,  and 
lost  the  refinement  which,  in  Greece,  had  led  it  to  rec- 
ognize in  virtue  that  which  gave  zest  to  pleasure  and 
in  temperance  that  which  prolonged  it.  It  called  sim- 
ply for  a  continuous  round  of  physical  delights;  it 
taught  the  grossest  sensuality;  it  proclaimed  the  in- 


GRi^CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  231 

anity  of  goodness  and  the  lawfulness  of  lust.  It  was 
the  road — sure,  steep  and  swift,  to  awful  demorali- 
zation." 

Stoicism,  on  the  other  hand,  furnished  spiritual  and 
intellectual  food  to  that  nobler  class  of  Romans  who 
were  at  once  the  support  and  ornament  of  a  magnifi- 
cent but  decadent  civilization.  This  form  of  philoso- 
phy was  peculiarly  consonant  with  early  Roman 
instincts  and  habits.  In  its  teachings  were  perfectly 
reflected  that  vigor,  austerity,  and  manly  self-reliance 
which  had  made  the  Roman  race  undisputed  masters 
of  the  world.  Many  of  its  precepts  were  not  only 
moral  and  ennobling,  but  deeply  religious  and  sustain- 
ing. A  striking  kinship  between  them  and  certain 
Christian  precepts  has  been  frequently  pointed  out. 
Justice,  fortitude,  prudence,  and  temperance  were  the 
four  cardinal  virtues  of  Stoicism.  Freedom  from  all 
passions  and  complete  simplicity  of  life,  resulting  in 
perfect  purity  of  manners,  was  its  chief  aim.  But  the 
fundamental  principles  of  both  Epicureanism  and 
Stoicism  were  destructive  of  those  spiritual  elements 
which  furnish  complete  and  permanent  nourishment 
to  the  soul.  Stoicism  was  pantheism,  and  Epicurean- 
ism was  materialism.  The  Stoic  believed  that  the 
human  soul  was  corporeal,  but  that  it  was  animated 
and  illuminated  by  the  universal  soul.  The  Epicu- 
rean taught  that  the  soul  was  composed  of  material 
atoms,  which  would  perish  when  its  component  parts 
separated  or  dissolved.  Epicureanism  was  materialis- 
tic in  its  tendency,  and  its  inevitable  result,  in  per- 
verted form,  was  sensualism.     Stoicism  was  pervaded 


232  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

throughout  by  a  melancholy  and  desolating  fatalism. 
It  was  peculiarly  the  philosophy  of  suicide;  or,  as  a 
great  French  writer  once  described  it,  "  an  apprentice- 
ship for  death."  ^  To  take  one's  life  was  not  only  al- 
lowable but  commendable  in  certain  cases.  Zeno,  the 
founder  of  the  sect,  taught  that  incurable  disease  was  a 
sufficient  excuse  for  suicide.  Marcus  Aurelius  consid- 
ered it  an  obligation  of  nature  and  of  reason  to  make 
an  end  of  life  when  it  became  an  intolerable  burden. 
"  Kill  thyself  and  die  erect  in  the  consciousness  of  thy 
own  strength,"  would  have  been  a  suitable  inscription 
over  the  doorway  of  every  Stoic  temple.  Seneca  fur- 
nished to  his  countrymen  this  Stoic  panacea  for  all  the 
ills  of  life: 

Seest  thou  yon  steep  height,  that  is  the  descent  to  free- 
dom. Seest  thou  yon  sea,  yon  river,  yon  well;  freedom  sits 
there  in  the  depths.  Seest  thou  yon  low  withered  tree;  there 
freedom  hangs.  Seest  thou  thy  neck,  thy  throat,  thy  heart; 
they  are  the  ways  of  escape  from  bondage. 

And  the  Roman  philosopher  was  not  only  conscien- 
tious but  consistent  in  his  teachings.  He  was  heroic 
enough  to  take  the  medicine  himself  which  he  had  pre- 
scribed for  others.  Indeed,  he  took  a  double  dose;  for 
he  not  only  swallowed  poison,  but  also  opened  his 
veins,  and  thus  committed  suicide,  as  other  Stoics — such 
as  Zeno,  Cleanthes  and  Cato — had  done  before  him. 

It  was  not  a  problem  of  the  Stoic  philosophy, 

Whether  'tis  nobler  in  the  mind  to  suffer 
The  slings  and  arrows  of  outrageous  fortune, 
Or  to  take  arms  against  a  sea  of  troubles, 
And  by  opposing  end  them?  ^ 

^  Renan,  "Les  Apotres."  ^  "Hamlet,"  Act  III,  Scene  i. 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  122 

A  familiar  illustration  of  the  advocates  of  suicide 
among  the  Roman  writers  was  that  a  human  body 
afflicted  with  incurable  disease,  or  a  human  mind 
weighed  down  with  intolerable  grief,  was  like  a  house 
filled  with  smoke.  As  it  was  the  duty  of  the  occupant 
of  the  house  to  escape  from  the  smoke  by  flight,  so  it 
was  the  duty  of  the  soul  to  leave  the  body  by  suicide. 

But  neither  Epicureanism  nor  Stoicism  could  satisfy 
the  natural  longing  of  the  soul  for  that  which  is  above 
the  earth  and  beyond  the  grave.  It  Vv^as  impossible 
that  philosophy  should  completely  displace  religion. 
The  spiritual  nature  of  the  Roman  people  was  still  in- 
tact and  vigorous  after  belief  in  myths  was  dead.  As 
a  substitute  for  their  ancient  faith  and  as  a  supplement 
to  philosophy,  they  began  to  deify  their  illustrious  men 
and  women.  The  apotheosis  of  the  emperors  was  the 
natural  result  of  the  progressive  degradation  of  the 
Roman  religion.  The  deification  of  Julius  Caesar  was 
the  beginning  of  this  servile  form  of  worship;  and  the 
apotheosis  of  Diocletian  was  the  fifty-third  of  these 
solemn  canonizations.  Of  this  number,  fifteen  were 
those  of  princesses  belonging  to  the  imperial  family. 

Divine  honors  began  to  be  paid  to  Caesar  before  he 
was  dead.  The  anniversary  of  his  birth  became  a  na- 
tional holiday;  his  bust  was  placed  in  the  temple,  and 
a  month  of  the  year  was  named  for  him.  After  his 
assassination,  he  was  worshiped  as  a  god  under  the 
name  of  Divus  Julius;  and  sacrifices  were  offered  upon 
his  altar.  After  Julius  Caesar,  followed  the  deifica- 
tion of  Augustus  Caesar.  Even  before  his  death,  Octa- 
vian  had  consented  to  be  worshiped  in  the  provinces, 


234  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

especially  in  Nicomedia  and  Pergamus.  After  his 
death,  his  worship  was  introduced  into  Rome  and 
Italy. 

The  act  of  canonizing  a  dead  emperor  was  accom- 
plished by  a  vote  of  the  senate,  followed  by  a  solemn 
ceremony,  in  which  an  eagle  was  released  at  the 
funeral  pile,  and  soaring  upward,  became  a  symbol  of 
the  ascent  of  the  deceased  to  the  skies.  A  Roman  sena- 
tor, Numerius  Atticus,  swore  that  he  had  seen  Augus- 
tus ascending  to  heaven  at  the  time  of  his  consecration; 
and  received  from  Livia  a  valuable  gift  of  money  as 
a  token  of  her  appreciation  of  his  kindness. 

Not  only  were  grand  and  gifted  men  like  Julius  and 
Augustus  Caesar,  but  despicable  and  contemptible 
tyrants  like  Nero  and  Commodus,  raised  to  the  rank 
of  immortals.  And,  not  content  with  making  gods  of 
emperors,  the  Romans  made  goddesses  of  their  royal 
women.  Caligula  had  lived  in  incestuous  intercourse 
with  his  sister  Drusilla;  nevertheless,  he  had  her  im- 
mortalized and  worshiped  as  a  divine  being.  This 
same  Caligula  who  was  a  monster  of  depravity,  in- 
sisted on  being  worshiped  as  a  god  in  the  flesh  through- 
out the  Roman  empire,  although  the  custom  had  been 
not  to  deify  emperors  until  after  they  were  dead.  The 
cowardly  and  obsequious  Roman  senate  decreed  him  a 
temple  in  Rome.  The  royal  rascal  erected  another  to 
himself,  and  appointed  his  own  private  priests  and 
priestesses,  among  whom  were  his  uncle  Claudius,  and 
the  Caesonia  who  afterwards  became  his  wife.  This 
temple  and  its  ministry  were  maintained  at  an  enor- 
mous expense.     Only  the  rarest  and  most  costly  birds 


GR^CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  235 

like  peacocks  and  pheasants,  were  allowed  to  be  sacri- 
ficed to  him.  Such  was  the  impious  conceit  of  Calig- 
ula that  he  requested  the  Asiatics  of  Miletus  to  con- 
vert a  temple  of  Apollo  into  a  shrine  sacred  to  him- 
self. Some  of  the  noblest  statuary  of  antiquity  was 
mutilated  in  displacing  the  heads  of  gods  to  make 
places  for  the  head  of  this  wicked  monster.  A  mighty 
'descent  this,  indeed,  from  the  Olympian  Zeus  of  Phid- 
ias to  a  bust  of  Caligula! 

Domitian,  after  his  deification,  had  himself  styled 
"  Lord  and  God,"  in  all  documents,  and  required  all 
his  subjects  to  so  address  him.  Pliny  tells  us  that  the 
roads  leading  into  Rome  were  constantly  filled  with 
flocks  and  herds  being  driven  to  the  Capital  to  be  sac- 
rificed upon  his  altar.^ 

The  natural  and  inevitable  result  of  the  decay  of  the 
Roman  religion  was  the  corruption  and  demoraliza- 
tion of  Roman  social  life.  All  experience  teaches  that 
an  assault  upon  a  people's  religious  system  is  an  assault 
upon  the  entire  social  and  moral  organization.  Every 
student  of  history  knows  that  a  nation  will  be  pros- 
perous and  happy  to  the  extent  that  it  is  religiously 
intelligent,  and  in  proportion  to  its  loyalty  to  the  laws 
of  social  virtue,  to  the  laws  of  good  government,  and 
the  laws  of  God;  and  that  an  abandonment  of  its  gods 
means  the  wreck  and  dissolution  of  its  entire  social 
structure.  The  annals  of  Rome  furnish  a  striking  con- 
firmation of  this  fact. 

The  closing  pages  of  this  chapter  will  be  devoted  to 
a  short  topical  review  of  Roman  society  at  the  time  of 

*  Dollinger,  vol.  ii.  pp.  175-79. 


11,6  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

Christ.    Only  a  few  phases  of  the  subject  can  be  pre- 
sented in  a  work  of  this  character. 

II. GRi^CO-ROMAN    SOCIAL    LIFE 

Marriage  and  Divorce. — The  family  is  the  unit  of 
the  social  system;  and  at  the  hearthstone  all  civiliza- 
tion begins.  The  loosening  of  the  domestic  ties  is  the 
beginning  of  the  dissolution  of  the  state;  and  whatever 
weakens  the  nuptial  bonds,  tends  to  destroy  the  moral 
fiber  of  society.  The  degradation  of  women  and  the 
destruction  of  domestic  purity  were  the  first  signs  of 
decay  in  Roman  life.  In  the  early  ages  of  the  republic, 
marriage  was  regarded  not  only  as  a  contract,  but  as  a 
sacrament  as  well.  Connubial  fidelity  was  sacredly 
maintained.  Matrons  of  the  type  of  Cornelia,  the 
mother  of  the  Gracchi,  were  objects  of  national  pride 
and  affection.  The  spirit  of  desperation  which  caused 
the  father  of  Virginia  to  plunge  a  butcher's  knife  into 
the  chaste  and  innocent  heart  of  his  child  to  save  her 
from  the  lust  of  Appius  Claudius,  was  a  tragic  illus- 
tration of  the  almost  universal  Roman  respect  for 
virtue  in  the  age  of  the  Tarquins.  To  such  an  extent 
were  the  marital  relations  venerated  by  the  early 
Romans  that  we  are  assured  by  Dionysius  that  five 
hundred  and  twenty  years  had  passed  before  a  single 
divorce  was  granted.  Carvilius  Ruga,  the  name  of  the 
first  Roman  to  procure  a  divorce,  has  been  handed 
down  to  us.^ 

If  we  are  to  believe  Dollinger,  the  abandonment  of 
the  policy  of  lifelong  devotion  to  the  marriage  rela- 

*  Dion.  ii.  25. 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  237 

tion  and  the  inauguration  of  the  system  of  divorce  were 
due  not  to  the  faults  of  the  men  but  to  the  dangerous 
and  licentious  qualities  of  the  Roman  women.  In  con- 
nection with  the  divorce  of  Carvilius  Ruga,  he  dis- 
cusses a  widespread  conspiracy  of  Roman  wives  to 
poison  their  husbands.  Several  of  these  husbands  fell 
victims  to  this  plot;  and,  as  punishment  for  the  crime, 
twenty  married  women  were  forced  to  take  the  poison 
which  they  had  themselves  prepared,  and  were  thus 
put  to  death.  And,  about  a  half  century  after  this 
divorce,  several  wives  of  distinguished  Romans  were 
discovered  to  be  participants  In  the  bacchanalian 
orgies.  From  all  these  things,  DoUinger  infers  that 
the  Roman  men  began  to  tire  of  their  wives  and  to  seek 
legal  separation  from  them.^ 

But,  whatever  the  cause,  the  marriage  tie  was  so 
easily  severed  during  the  latter  years  of  the  republic, 
that  divorce  was  granted  on  the  slightest  pretext.  Q. 
Antistius  Vetus  divorced  his  wife  because  she  was  talk- 
ing familiarly  and  confidentially  to  one  of  his  freed- 
men.  The  wife  of  C.  Sulpicius  imprudently  entered 
the  street  without  a  veil,  and  her  husband  secured  a 
divorce  on  that  ground.  P.  Sempronius  Sophus  put 
away  his  wife  for  going  to  the  theater  without  his 
knowledge. 

Cicero  divorced  his  first  wife  that  he  might  marry 
a  younger  and  wealthier  woman;  and  because  this  sec- 
ond one  did  not  exhibit  sufficient  sorrow  at  the  death 
of  his  daughter,  Tullia,  he  repudiated  her. 

Cato,  the  stern  Stoic  moralist,  was  several  times  di- 

1  Dollinger,  vol.  ii.  pp.  267-69. 


238  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

vorced.  To  accommodate  his  friend  Hortensius  he 
gave  him  his  second  wife  Marcia,  with  her  father's 
consent;  and,  after  the  death  of  the  orator,  he  remar- 
ried her. 

After  being  several  times  previously  divorced,  Pom- 
pey  put  away  Mucia  in  order  that  he  might  wed  Julia, 
Caesar's  daughter,  who  was  young  enough  to  be  the 
child  of  Pompey. 

Caesar  himself  was  five  times  married.  He  divorced 
his  wife,  Pompeia,  because  of  her  relationship  to  Clo- 
dius,  a  dashing  and  dissolute  young  Roman,  who 
entered  Caesar's  house  on  the  occasion  of  the  celebra- 
tion of  the  feast  of  the  Bona  Dea  in  a  woman's  dress, 
in  order  that  he  might  pay  clandestine  suit  to  the  object 
of  his  lust.  Caesar  professed  to  believe  that  the  charges 
against  Pompeia  were  not  true,  but  he  divorced  her 
nevertheless,  with  the  remark  that  "  Caesar's  wife  must 
be  above  suspicion."  We  are  reminded  by  this  that, 
in  ancient  as  in  modern  times,  society  placed  greater 
restrictions  upon  women  than  upon  men;  for  Caesar, 
who  uttered  this  virtuous  and  heroic  sentiment,  was  a 
most  notorious  rake  and  profligate.  Suetonius  tells  us 
that  he  debauched  many  Roman  ladies  of  the  first 
rank;  among  them  "  Lollia,  the  wife  of  Aulus  Ga- 
binius;  TertuUa,  the  wife  of  Marcus  Crassus;  and 
Mucia,  the  wife  of  Cneius  Pompey."  It  was  fre- 
quently made  a  reproach  to  Pompey,  "  that  to  gratify 
his  ambition,  he  married  the  daughter  of  a  man  upon 
whose  account  he  had  divorced  his  wife,  after  having 
had  three  children  by  her;  and  whom  he  used,  with  a 
deep  sigh,  to  call  ^gisthus."    But  the  favorite  mistress 


GRiE CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  239 

of  Caesar  was  Servilia,  the  mother  of  Marcus  Brutus. 
To  consummate  an  intrigue  with  her,  he  gave  Servilia 
a  pearl  which  cost  him  six  millions  of  sesterces.  And 
at  the  time  of  the  civil  war  he  had  deeded  to  her 
for  a  trifling  consideration,  several  valuable  farms. 
When  people  expressed  surprise  at  the  lowness  of  the 
price,  Cicero  humorously  remarked:  "To  let  you 
know  the  real  value  of  the  purchase,  between  ourselves, 
Tertia  was  deducted."  It  was  generally  suspected  at 
Rome  that  Servilia  had  prostituted  her  daughter  Ter- 
tia to  Caesar;  and  the  witticism  of  the  orator  was  a 
double  entendre^  Tertia  signifying  the  third  (of  the 
value  of  the  farm),  as  wtU  as  being  the  name  of  the 
girl,  whose  virtue  had  paid  the  price  of  the  deduction. 
Caesar's  lewdness  was  so  flagrant  and  notorious  that  his 
soldiers  marching  behind  his  chariot,  on  the  occasion 
of  his  Gallic  triumph,  shouted  in  ribald  jest,  to  the 
multitude  along  the  way: 

Watch  well  your  wives,  ye  cits,  we  bring  a  blade, 
A  bald-pate  master  of  the  wenching  trade. ^ 

If  this  was  the  private  life  of  the  greatest  Roman  of 
the  world,  who,  at  the  time  of  his  death,  was  Pontifex 
Maximus,  the  supreme  head  of  the  Roman  religion, 
what  must  have  been  the  social  life  of  the  average  citi- 
zen who  delighted  to  style  Caesar  the  demigod  while 
living  and  to  worship  him  as  divine,  when  dead? 

A  thorough  knowledge  of  the  details  of  the  most 
corrupt  and  abandoned  state  of  society  recorded  in 
history  may  be  had  by  a  perusal  of  the  Annals  of  Taci- 

^  Suetonius,  "Julius  Caesar,"  1-li. 


240  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

tus  and  the  Satires  of  Juvenal.  The  Sixth  Satire  is  a 
withering  arraignment  of  Roman  profligacy  and  wick- 
edness. "  To  see  the  world  in  its  worst  estate,"  says 
Professor  Jowett,  "  we  turn  to  the  age  of  the  satirists 
and  of  Tacitus,  when  all  the  different  streams  of  evil, 
coming  from  east,  west,  north,  south,  the  vices  of  bar- 
barism and  the  vices  of  civilization,  remnants  of  an- 
cient cults,  and  the  latest  refinements  of  luxury  and 
impurity,  met  and  mingled  on  the  banks  of  the  Tiber." 
Rome  was  the  heart  of  the  empire  that  pumped  its 
filthy  blood  from  the  center  to  the  extremities,  and  re- 
ceived from  the  provinces  a  return  current  of  immo- 
rality and  corruption.    Juvenal  complains  that 

Long  since  the  stream  that  wanton  Syria  laves, 
Has  disembogued  its  filth  in  Tiber's  waves. 

Grecian  literature  and  manners  were  the  main  cause 
of  Roman  dissoluteness. 

The  grandfather  of  Cicero  is  said  to  have  made  this 
declaration:  "  A  Roman's  wickedness  increases  in  pro- 
portion to  his  acquaintance  with  Greek  authors."  Tt 
is  undeniably  true  that  the  domestic  immorality  of  the 
Greeks  exercised  a  most  baneful  influence  upon  the 
social  life  of  the  Romans.  Both  at  Athens  and  in 
Sparta  marriage  was  regarded  as  the  means  to  an  end, 
the  procreation  of  children  as  worshipers  of  the  gods 
and  citizens  of  the  state.  In  this  fundamental  purpose 
were  involved,  the  Greeks  believed,  the  mission  and 
the  destiny  of  woman.  Marriage  was  not  so  much  a 
sacred  institution,  as  it  was  a  convenient  arrangement 
whereby  property  rights  were  regulated  and  soldiers 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  241 

were  provided  for  the  army  and  the  navy.  This  view 
was  entertained  by  both  the  Athenians  and  the  Spar- 
tans. The  code  of  Lycurgus  regulated  the  family  re- 
lations to  the  end  that  healthy,  vigorous  children  might 
be  born  to  a  military  commonwealth.  The  Spartan 
maidens  were  required  to  exercise  in  the  palestra, 
almost  naked,  in  the  presence  of  men  and  strangers. 
And  so  loose  and  extravagant  were  the  ideas  of  con- 
jugal fidelity  among  the  Spartans  that  it  was  not  re- 
garded as  an  improper  thing  to  borrow  another  man's 
wife  for  the  purpose  of  procreating  children,  if  there 
had  already  been  born  to  the  legitimate  husband  all 
the  children  that  he  desired.  This  we  learn  from 
Xenophon  ^  and  from  Polybius,^  who  assure  us  that  it 
often  happened  that  as  many  as  four  Spartans  had  one 
woman,  in  common,  for  a  wife.  "  Already  In  the  time 
of  Socrates,  the  wives  of  Sparta  had  reached  the  height 
of  disrepute  for  their  wantonness  throughout  the  whole 
of  Greece;  Aristotle  says  that  they  lived  in  unbridled 
licentiousness;  and,  indeed,  it  is  a  distinctive  feature 
in  the  female  character  there,  that  publicly  and  shame- 
lessly they  would  speed  a  well-known  seducer  of  a 
woman  of  rank  by  wishing  him  success,  and  charging 
him  to  think  only  of  endowing  Sparta  with  brave 
boys." ' 

At  Athens  the  principle  was  the  same,  even  if  the 
gratification  of  lust  was  surrounded  with  a  halo  of 
poetry  and  sentiment  which  the  Spartan  imagination 

1  Xen.  de  Rep.  Lac.  i.  8. 

2  "  Polyb.  Fragm."  in  Scr.  Vet.  Nov.  Coll.  ed.  Mav.  ii.  384. 

3  Dollinger,  vol.  ii.  p.  249. 


242  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

was  incapable  of  creating.  The  Athenians  were  guilty 
of  a  strange  perversion  of  the  social  instincts  by  plac- 
ing a  higher  appreciation  upon  the  charms  of  a  certain 
class  of  lewd  women  that  they  did  upon  the  virtuous 
merits  of  their  own  wives  and  mothers.  These  latter 
were  kept  in  retirement  and  denied  the  highest  educa- 
tional advantages;  while  the  former,  the  Hetairai, 
beautiful  and  brilliant  courtesans,  destined  for  the 
pleasure  and  entertainment  of  illustrious  men,  were 
accorded  the  utmost  freedom,  as  well  as  all  the  advan- 
tages of  culture  in  the  arts  and  sciences.  Demosthenes 
has  classified  the  women  of  ancient  Athens  in  this  sen- 
tence: "We  have  Hetairai  for  our  pleasure,  concu- 
bines for  the  ordinary  requirements  of  the  body,  and 
wives  for  the  procreation  of  lawful  issue  and  as  confi- 
dential domestic  guardians."  The  most  renowned  of 
the  Hetairai  was  Aspasia,  the  mistress  of  Pericles. 
She  was  exceedingly  beautiful  and  brilliantly  accom- 
plished. At  her  house  in  Athens,  poets,  philosophers, 
statesmen,  and  sculptors  frequently  gathered  to  do  her 
honor.  Pericles  is  said  to  have  wept  only  three  times 
in  life;  and  one  of  these  was  when  he  defended  Aspasia 
before  the  dicastery  of  Athens  against  the  charge  of 
impiety. 

Another  of  the  Hetairai  scarcely  less  famous  than 
Aspasia  was  the  celebrated  Athenian  courtesan, 
Phryne.  Praxiteles,  the  sculptor,  was  one  of  her  ador- 
ers. She,  too,  was  tried  for  impiety  before  the  dicas- 
tery. Hiperides,  the  Attic  orator,  defended  her.  To 
create  a  favorable  impression  upon  the  court,  he  bade 
her  reveal  her  bosom  to  the  judges.     She  did  so,  and 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  243 

was  acquitted.  So  great  was  the  veneration  in  which 
Phryne  was  held  that  it  was  considered  no  profanation 
to  place  her  image  in  the  sacred  temple  at  Delphi. 
And  so  overwhelming  was  her  beauty,  that  her  statues 
were  identified  with  the  Aphrodite  of  Apelles  and  the 
Cnidian  goddess  of  Praxiteles.  At  Eleusis,  on  the 
occasion  of  a  national  festival,  she  impersonated  Venus 
by  entering  naked  into  the  waves,  in  the  presence  of 
spectators  from  all  the  cities  of  Greece.  She  is  said 
to  have  amassed  such  a  fortune  that  she  felt  justified 
in  offering  to  build  the  walls  of  Thebes. 

Such  was  the  esteem  in  which  these  elegant  harlots 
were  held,  that  we  find  recorded  among  their  patrons 
on  the  pages  of  Greek  history  the  names  of  Pericles, 
Demades,  Lysias,  Demosthenes,  Isocrates,  Aristotle, 
Aristippus,  and  Epicurus.  So  little  odium  attached  to 
the  occupation  of  this  class  of  women  that  we  read  that 
Socrates  frequently  paid  visits  to  one  of  them  named 
Theodota  and  advised  her  as  to  the  best  method  of 
gaining  "  friends  "  and  keeping  them.^ 

As  the  sculptors  did  not  hesitate  to  carve  the  images 
of  the  Hetairai  in  marble  and  give  them  the  names  of 
the  goddesses  of  Olympus,  so  the  poets,  orators,  and 
historians  did  not  fail  to  immortalize  them  in  their 
poems,  orations,  and  annals.  Greek  statuary  and  lit- 
erature were  then  transported  to  Italy  to  corrupt 
Roman  manners.  It  was  not  long  before  adultery  and 
seduction  had  completely  poisoned  and  polluted  every 
fountain  of  Roman  private  life.  *'  Liaisons  in  the  first 
houses,"  says   Mommsen,   "  had  become  so   frequent, 

1  "Xen.  Mem.  Socr."  iii.  13. 


244  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

that  only  a  scandal  altogether  exceptional  could  make 
them  the  subject  of  special  talk;  a  judicial  interference 
seems  now  almost  ridiculous." 

Roman  women  of  patrician  rank,  not  content  with 
noblemen  as  lovers,  sought  out  "  lewd  fellows  of  the 
baser  sort"  among  slaves  and  gladiators,  as  compan- 
ions of  corrupt  intrigues.  Juvenal,  in  his  Sixth  Satire, 
paints  a  horrible  picture  of  social  depravity  when  he 
describes  the  lewdness  of  Messalina,  the  wife  of  Clau- 
dius I.  This  woman,  the  wife  of  an  emperor,  and  the 
mother  of  the  princely  Britannicus,  descends  from  the 
imperial  bed,  in  the  company  of  a  single  female  slave, 
at  the  dead  of  night,  to  a  common  Roman  brothel, 
assumes  the  name  Lycisca,  and  submits  to  the  embraces 
of  the  coarsest  Roman  debauchees. 

The  degradation  of  women  was  not  peculiar  to  the 
Capital  of  the  empire,  but  extended  to  every  province. 
Social  impurity  was  rankest  in  the  East,  but  it  was 
present  everywhere.  Virtue  seemed  to  have  left  the 
earth,  and  Vice  had  taken  her  place  as  the  supreme 
mistress  of  the  world. 

Luxury  and  Extravagance. — At  the  birth  of  Christ, 
the  frontiers  of  the  Roman  empire  comprised  all  the 
territory  of  the  then  civilized  world.  In  extending  her 
conquests,  Rome  laid  heavy  tribute  upon  conquered 
nations.  All  the  wealth  of  the  earth  flowed  into  her 
coffers.  The  result  was  unexampled  luxury  and  ex- 
travagance. A  single  illustration  will  serve  to  show 
the  mode  of  life  of  the  wealthy  Roman  citizen  of  the 
time  of  which  we  write.  LucuUus,  the  lieutenant  of 
Sulla,   and  the   friend   of   Cicero   and   Pompey,   had 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  245 

amassed  enormous  wealth  in  the  Mithradatlc  wars. 
This  fortune  he  employed  to  inaugurate  and  maintain 
a  style  of  social  life  whose  splendor  and  extravagance 
were  the  astonishment  and  scandal  of  his  age  and  race. 
The  meals  served  upon  his  table,  even  when  no  guests 
were  present,  were  marked  by  all  the  taste,  elegance, 
and  completeness  of  a  banquet.  On  one  occasion,  when 
he  happened  to  dine  alone,  the  table  was  not  arranged 
with  the  ordinary  fullness  and  splendor;  whereupon 
he  made  complaint  to  the  servants,  who  replied  that 
they  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  prepare  so  completely 
when  he  was  alone.  "What!  did  you  not  know  that 
Lucullus  would  dine  with  LucuUus?  "  was  his  answer. 
At  another  time,  Cicero  and  Pompey  met  him  in  the 
Forum  and  requested  that  he  take  them  with  him  to 
dine,  as  they  desired  to  learn  how  his  table  was  spread 
when  no  visitors  were  expected.  Lucullus  was  embar- 
rassed for  a  moment;  but  soon  regained  his  composure, 
and  replied  that  he  would  be  delighted  to  have  such 
distinguished  Romans  dine  with  him,  but  that  he 
would  like  to  have  a  day  for  preparation.  They  re- 
fused this  request,  however;  nor  would  they  con- 
sent that  he  send  directions  to  his  servants,  as  they 
desired  to  see  how  meals  were  served  in  his  home 
when  no  guests  were  there.  Lucullus  then  requested 
Cicero  and  Pompey  to  permit  him  to  tell  his  serv- 
ants, in  their  presence,  in  what  room  the  repast  should 
be  served.  They  consented  to  this;  and  Lucullus 
then  directed  that  the  Hall  of  Apollo  should  be  ar- 
ranged for  the  dinner.  Now  the  dining  rooms  in 
the  home  of  Lucullus  w^re  graded  in  price;  and  it  was 


246  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

only  necessary  to  designate  the  room  in  order  to  notify 
the  servants  of  the  style  and  costliness  of  the  entertain- 
ment desired.  The  Hall  of  Apollo  called  for  an  ex- 
penditure, at  each  meal,  of  fifty  thousand  drachmas, 
the  equivalent  of  $10,000  in  our  money.  And  vs^hen 
Cicero  and  Pompey  sat  down  at  the  table  of  Lucullus 
a  few  hours  later,  the  decorations  of  the  room  and  the 
feast  spread  before  them,  offered  a  spectacle  of  inde- 
scribable beauty  and  luxury.  The  epicure  had  out- 
w^itted  the  orator  and  the  general. 

Other  anecdotes  related  by  Plutarch  also  illustrate 
the  luxurious  life  of  Lucullus.  Once  when  Pompey 
was  sick,  his  physician  prescribed  a  thrush  for  his 
meal;  whereupon  Pompey's  servants  notified  him  that 
a  thrush  could  not  be  secured  in  Italy  during  the 
summer  time,  except  in  the  fattening  coops  of  Lu- 
cullus. 

Cato  despised  the  luxurious  habits  of  Lucullus;  and, 
on  one  occasion,  when  a  young  man  was  extolling  the 
beauties  of  frugality  and  temperance  in  a  speech  before 
the  senate,  the  Stoic  interrupted  him  by  asking:  "  How 
long  do  you  mean  to  go  on  making  money  like  Crassus, 
living  like  Lucullus  and  talking  like  Cato?"^ 

Lucullus  was  not  the  only  Roman  of  his  day  who 
spent  fabulous  sums  of  money  in  luxurious  living  and 
in  building  palatial  residences.  M.  Lepidus,  who  was 
elected  Consul  in  87  B.C.,  erected  the  most  magnificent 
private  edifice  ever  seen  in  Rome. 

But  the  culmination  of  magnificence  in  Roman 
architecture  was  the  Golden  House  of  Nero.    Its  walls 

1  Plutarch,  "Life  of  Lucullus." 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  247 

were  covered  with  gold  and  studded  with  precious 
stones.  The  banquet  rooms  were  decorated  with  gor- 
geous ceilings,  and  were  so  constructed  that  from  them 
flowers  and  perfumes  could  be  showered  from  above 
on  the  guests  below. 

Concerning  the  luxurious  life  of  the  later  days  of  the 
republic,  Mommsen  says:  "Extravagant  prices,  as 
much  as  one  hundred  thousand  sesterces  (£1,000) 
were  paid  for  an  exquisite  cook.  Houses  were  con- 
structed with  special  reference  to  this  subject.  ...  A 
dinner  was  already  described  as  poor  at  which  the 
fowls  were  served  up  to  the  guests  entire,  and  not 
merely  the  choice  portions.  ...  At  banquets,  above 
all,  the  Romans  displayed  their  hosts  of  slaves  minis- 
tering to  luxury,  their  bands  of  musicians,  their 
dancing-girls,  their  elegant  furniture,  their  carpets 
glittering  with  gold,  or  pictorlally  embroidered,  their 
rich  silver  plate."  ^ 

But  the  luxury  and  extravagance  of  the  Romans 
were  nowhere  so  manifest  as  in  their  public  bathing 
establishments.  "  The  magnificence  of  many  of  the 
thermae  and  their  luxurious  arrangements  were  such 
that  some  writers,  as  Seneca,  are  quite  lost  in  their  de- 
scriptions of  them.  The  piscinae  were  often  of  im- 
mense size — that  of  Diocletian  being  200  feet  long — 
and  were  adorned  with  beautiful  marbles.  The  halls 
were  crowded  with  magnificent  columns,  and  were 
ornamented  with  the  finest  pieces  of  statuary.  The 
walls,  it  has  been  said,  were  covered  with  exquisite 
mosaics  that  Imitated  the  art  of  the  painter  in  their 

1  Fisher,  "The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,"  p.  205. 


248  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

elegance  of  design  and  variety  of  color.  The  Egyp- 
tian syenite  was  encrusted  with  the  precious  green 
marbles  of  Numidia.  The  rooms  contained  the  works 
of  Phidias  and  Praxiteles.  A  perpetual  stream  of 
water  was  poured  into  capacious  basins  through  the 
wide  mouths  of  lions  of  bright  and  polished  silver. 
*  To  such  a  pitch  of  luxury  have  we  reached,'  says 
Seneca,  *  that  we  are  dissatisfied  if  we  do  not  tread  on 
gems  in  our  baths.'  "  ^ 

The  circuses  were  scarcely  inferior  to  the  baths  in 
magnificence.  Caligula  is  said  to  have  strewn  them 
with  gold  dust. 

The  result  of  Roman  luxury  in  the  matter  of  food 
and  drink  was  a  coarse  and  loathsome  gluttony  which 
finds  no  parallel  in  modern  life.  Epicureanism  had 
degenerated  from  barley-bread  and  water  to  the  cost- 
liest diet  ever  known.  Wealthy  Romans  of  the  age  of 
Augustus  did  not  hesitate  to  pay  two  hundred  and  fifty 
dollars  for  a  single  fish — the  mullet.  And  that  they 
might  indulge  their  appetite  to  the  fullest  extent,  and 
prolong  the  pleasures  of  eating  beyond  the  require- 
ments and  even  the  capacity  of  nature,  they  were  in 
the  habit  of  taking  an  emetic  at  meal  times.  We  learn 
from  the  letters  of  Cicero  that  Julius  Caesar  did  this  on 
one  occasion  when  he  went  to  visit  the  orator  at  his 
country  villa.  And  the  degeneracy  of  Roman  life  is 
nowhere  more  clearly  indicated  than  in  the  Fourth 
Satire  of  Juvenal  where  he  describes  the  gathering  of 
the  great  men  of  the  state,  at  the  call  of  Domitian,  to 
determine  how  a  turbot  should  be  cooked. 

1  "Encyc.  Brit."  vol.  iii.  p.  436. 


GR^CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  249 

But  the  reader  must  not  infer  that  all  Romans  were 
rich  and  that  luxury  was  indulged  in  every  home.  In 
the  Roman  capital  the  extremes  of  wealth  and  poverty 
met.  The  city  was  filled  with  idlers,  vagabonds  and 
paupers  from  all  quarters  of  the  globe.  In  the  early 
days  of  the  Republic,  sturdy  farmers  had  tilled  the 
soil  of  Italy  and  had  filled  the  legions  with  brave  and 
hardy  warriors.  The  beginning  of  the  empire  wit- 
nessed a  radical  change.  Hundreds  of  thousands  of 
these  farmers  had  been  driven  from  their  lands  to 
furnish  homes  to  the  disbanded  soldiers  of  conquerors 
like  Sulla,  Marius,  and  Caesar.  Homeless  and  pov- 
erty-stricken, they  wandered  away  to  Rome  to  swell 
the  ranks  of  mendicants  and  adventurers  that  crowded 
the  streets  of  the  imperial  city.  The  soldiers  them- 
selves, finding  agriculture  distasteful  and  unprofitable, 
sold  their  lands  to  Roman  speculators,  and  returned  to 
the  scene  of  the  triumphs  of  their  military  masters. 
The  inevitable  consequence  of  this  influx  of  strangers 
and  foreigners,  without  wealth  and  without  employ- 
ment, was  the  degradation  and  demoralization  of 
Roman  social  and  industrial  life.  Augustus  was  com- 
pelled to  make  annual  donations  of  money  and  pro- 
visions to  200,000  persons  who  wandered  helpless 
about  the  streets.  This  state  of  things — fabulous 
wealth  in  the  hands  of  a  few,  and  abject  poverty  as  the 
lot  of  millions — was  the  harbinger  sure  and  swift  of 
the  destruction  of  the  state. 

Slavery. — At  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era, 
slavery  existed  in  every  province  of  the  Roman  em- 
pire.   Nearly  everywhere  the  number  of  slaves  was 


250  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

much  greater  than  that  of  the  free  citizens.  In 
Attica,  according  to  the  census  of  Demetrius  Phale- 
reus,  about  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century  B.C., 
there  were  400,000  slaves,  10,000  foreign  settlers,  and 
20,000  free  citizens.  Zumpt  estimates  that  there  were 
two  slaves  to  every  freeman  in  Rome  in  the  year  5  B.C. 
It  frequently  happened  that  a  wealthy  Roman  pos- 
sessed as  many  as  20,000  slaves.  Slaves  who  gained 
their  freedom  might  themselves  become  masters  and 
own  slaves.  During  the  reign  of  Augustus,  a  freed- 
man  died,  leaving  4,116  slaves.  Crassus  possessed  so 
many  that  his  company  of  architects  and  carpenters 
alone  exceeded  500  in  number. 

The  principal  slave  markets  of  Greece  were  those  at 
Athens,  Ephesus,  Cyprus,  and  Samos.  In  the  market 
place  of  each  of  these  cities,  slaves  were  exposed  for 
sale  upon  wooden  scaffolds.  From  the  neck  of  each 
was  hung  a  tablet  or  placard  containing  a  description 
of  his  or  her  meritorious  qualities,  such  as  parentage, 
educational  advantages,  health  and  freedom  from 
physical  defects.  They  were  required  to  strip  them- 
selves at  the  request  of  purchasers.  In  this  way,  the 
qualifications  of  slaves  for  certain  purposes  could  be 
accurately  judged.  The  vigorous,  large-limbed  Cap- 
padocians,  for  instance,  like  our  modern  draft  horses, 
were  selected  for  their  strength  and  their  ability  to  lift 
heavy  loads  and  endure  long-continued  work. 

The  property  of  the  master  in  the  slave  was  absolute. 
The  owner  might  kill  or  torture  his  slave  at  will. 
Neither  the  government  nor  any  individual  could 
bring  him  to  account  for  it.     Roman  law  compelled 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  251 

female  slaves  to  surrender  themselves,  against  their 
will,  to  their  master's  lust.  All  the  coarseness  and  bru- 
tality of  the  haughty,  arrogant,  and  merciless  Roman 
disposition  v^ere  manifested  in  the  treatment  of  their 
slaves.  Nowhere  do  we  find  any  mercy  or  humanity 
shown  them.  On  the  farms  they  worked  with  chains 
about  their  limbs  during  the  day;  and  at  night  they 
were  lodged  in  the  ergastula — subterranean  apart- 
ments, badly  lighted  and  poorly  ventilated.  The  most 
cruel  punishment  awaited  the  slave  who  attempted  to 
escape.  The  fugitavarii — professional  slave  chasers — 
ran  him  down,  branded  him  on  the  forehead,  and 
brought  him  back  to  his  master.  If  the  master  was 
very  rich,  or  cared  little  for  the  life  of  the  slave,  he 
usually  commanded  him  to  be  thrown,  as  a  punishment 
for  his  attempt  to  flee,  to  the  wild  beasts  in  the  amphi- 
theater. This  cruel  treatment  was  not  exceptional,  but 
was  ordinary.  Cato,  the  paragon  among  the  Stoics, 
was  so  merciless  in  his  dealings  with  his  slaves  that  one 
of  them  committed  suicide  rather  than  await  the  hour 
of  punishment  for  some  transgression  of  which  he  was 
guilty.^  It  frequently  happened  that  the  slaves  had 
knowledge  of  crimes  committed  by  their  masters.  In 
such  cases  they  were  fortunate  if  they  escaped  death, 
as  the  probability  of  their  becoming  witnesses  against 
their  masters  offered  every  inducement  to  put  them  out 
of  the  way.  In  his  defense  of  Cluentius,  Cicero  speaks 
of  a  slave  who  had  his  tongue  cut  out  to  prevent  his 
betraying  his  mistress.^  If  a  slave  murdered  his  mas- 
ter, all  his  fellow-slaves  under  the  same  roof  were  held 

1  Plutarch,  "Life  of  Cato."  2  Qcero,  "  Pro  Cluent."  66. 


252  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

responsible  for  the  deed.  Thus  four  hundred  slaves 
were  put  to  death  for  the  act  of  one  who  assassinated 
Pedanius  Secundus,  during  the  reign  of  Nero/  Au- 
gustus had  his  steward,  Eros,  crucified  on  the  mast  of 
his  ship  because  the  slave  had  roasted  and  eaten  a  quail 
that  had  been  trained  for  the  royal  quail-pit.  Once  a 
slave  was  flung  to  the  fishes  because  he  had  broken  a 
crystal  goblet.^  On  another  occasion,  a  slave  was  com- 
pelled to  march  around  a  banquet  table,  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  guests,  with  his  hands,  which  had  been  cut 
off,  hanging  from  his  neck,  because  he  had  stolen  some 
trifling  article  of  silverware.  Cicero,  in  his  prosecu- 
tion of  Verres,  recites  an  instance  of  mean  and  cow- 
ardly cruelty  toward  a  slave.  "  At  the  time,"  he  says, 
**  in  which  L.  Domitius  was  prsetor  in  Sicily,  a  slave 
killed  a  wild  boar  of  extraordinary  size.  The  praetor, 
struck  by  the  dexterity  and  courage  of  the  man,  de- 
sired to  see  him.  The  poor  wretch,  highly  gratified 
with  the  distinction,  came  to  present  himself  before 
the  praetor,  in  hopes,  no  doubt,  of  praise  and  reward; 
but  Domitius,  on  learning  that  he  had  only  a  javelin 
to  attack  and  kill  the  boar,  ordered  him  to  be  instantly 
crucified,  under  the  barbarous  pretext  that  the  law 
I  prohibited  the  use  of  this  weapon,  as  of  all  others,  to 
slaves." 

The  natural  consequence  of  this  cruel  treatment  was 
unbounded  hatred  of  the  master  by  the  slave.  *'  We 
have  as  many  enemies,"  says  Seneca,  "  as  we  have 
slaves."    And  what  rendered  the  situation  perilous  was 

^  Tacitus,  "Annals,"  42-44. 

2  De  Pressense,  "The  Religions  Before  Christ,"  p.  158. 


GR.ECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  is:^ 

the  numerical  superiority  of  the  slave  over  the  free 
population.  "  They  multiply  at  an  immense  rate," 
says  Tacitus,  "  whilst  freemen  diminish  in  equal  pro- 
portion." Pliny  the  Younger  gave  expression  to  the 
universal  apprehension  w^hen  he  v^^rote:  "By  what 
dangers  we  are  beset!  No  one  is  safe;  not  even  the 
most  indulgent,  gentlest  master."  Precautionary  meas- 
ures were  adopted  from  time  to  time  both  by  indi- 
viduals and  by  the  government  to  prevent  concerted 
action  among  the  slaves  and  to  conceal  from  them  all 
evidences  of  their  own  strength.  To  keep  down  mu- 
tiny among  his  slaves,  Cato  is  said  to  have  constantly 
excited  dissension  and  enmity  among  them.  "  It  was 
once  proposed,"  says  Gibbon,  "  to  discriminate  the 
slaves  by  a  peculiar  habit;  but  it  was  justly  appre- 
hended that  there  might  be  some  danger  in  acquaint- 
ing them  with  their  own  numbers."  ^ 

If  the  Roman  masters  maltreated  and  destroyed  the 
bodies  of  their  slaves,  the  slaves  retaliated  by  corrupt- 
ing and  destroying  the  morals  of  their  masters.  The 
institution  of  slavery  was  one  of  the  most  potent  agen- 
cies in  the  demoralization  of  ancient  Roman  manners. 
The  education  of  children  was  generally  confided  to 
the  slaves,  who  did  not  fail  to  poison  their  minds  and 
hearts  in  many  ways.  In  debauching  their  female 
slaves,  the  Roman  masters  polluted  their  own  morals 
and  corrupted  their  own  manhood.  The  result  teaches 
us  that  the  law  of  physics  is  the  law  of  morals:  that 
action  and  reaction  are  equal,  but  in  opposite  direc- 
tions. 

1  Milman's  "Gibbon's  Rome,"  vol,  i,  p.  51. 


254  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

Destruction  of  New-Born  Infants. — The  destruction 
of  new-born  children  was  the  deepest  stain  upon  the 
civilization  of  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans.  In 
obedience  to  a  provision  of  the  code  of  Lycurgus,  every 
Spartan  child  was  exhibited  immediately  after  birth 
to  public  view;  and,  if  it  was  found  to  be  deformed 
and  weakly,  so  that  it  was  unfit  to  grow  into  a  strong 
and  healthy  citizen  of  the  Spartan  military  common- 
wealth, it  was  exposed  to  perish  on  Mount  Taygetus. 
The  practice  of  exposing  infants  was  even  more  arbi- 
trary and  cruel  in  Rome  than  in  Greece.  The  Roman 
father  was  bound  by  no  limitations;  but  could  cast  his 
offspring  away  to  die,  through  pure  caprice.  Paulus, 
the  celebrated  jurist  of  the  imperial  period,  admitted 
that  this  was  a  paternal  privilege.  Suetonius  tells  us 
that  the  day  of  the  death  of  Germanicus,  which  took 
place  A.D.  19,  was  signalized  by  the  exposition  of  chil- 
dren who  were  born  on  that  day.^  This  was  done  as  a 
manifestation  of  general  sorrow.  The  emperor  Au- 
gustus banished  his  granddaughter  Julia  on  account  of 
her  lewdness  and  licentiousness,  as  he  had  done  in  the 
case  of  his  daughter,  Julia.  In  exile,  she  gave  birth  to 
a  child  which  Augustus  caused  to  be  exposed.  It  often 
happened  that  new-born  babes  that  had  been  cast  away 
to  die  of  cold  and  hunger  or  to  be  devoured  by  dogs 
or  wild  beasts  were  rescued  by  miscreants  who  brought 
them  up  to  devote  them  to  evil  purposes.  The  male 
children  were  destined  to  become  gladiators,  and  the 
females  were  sold  to  houses  of  prostitution.  Often 
such  children  were  picked  up  by  those  who  disfigured 

1  Suetonius,  "Caligula,"  Chap.  V. 


GR^CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  255 

and  deformed  them  for  the  purpose  of  associating 
them  with  themselves  as  beggars. 

The  custom  of  exposing  infants  was  born  of  the 
spirit  of  fierceness  and  barbarity  that  characterized 
many  ancient  races.  Its  direct  tendency  was  to  make 
savages  of  men  by  destroying  those  tender  and  humane 
feelings  for  the  weak  and  helpless  which  have  been  the 
most  marked  attributes  of  modern  civilizations.  Oc- 
casionally in  our  day  one  hears  or  reads  of  a  proposi- 
tion by  some  pseudo-philanthropist  that  the  good  of 
the  race  demands  the  destruction  of  certain  persons — 
deformed  infants,  imbecile  adults  and  the  like.  But 
the  humanity  of  the  age  invariably  frowns  upon  such 
proposals.  The  benign  and  merciful  features  of  our 
Christian  creed  would  be  outraged  by  such  a  practice. 

Gladiatorial  Games. — The  combats  of  gladiators 
wxre  the  culmination  of  Roman  barbarity  and  brutal- 
ity. All  the  devotees  of  vice  and  crime  met  and  min- 
gled at  the  arena,  and  derived  strength  and  inspiration 
from  its  bloody  scenes.  The  gatherings  in  the  am- 
phitheater were  miniatures  of  Roman  life.  There, 
political  matters  were  discussed  and  questions  of  state 
determined,  as  was  once  the  case  in  the  public  assem- 
blies of  the  people.  Now  that  the  gates  of  Janus  were 
closed  for  the  third  time  in  Roman  history,  the  com- 
bats of  the  arena  took  the  place,  on  a  diminutive  scale, 
of  those  battles  by  which  Romans  had  conquered  the 
world.  The  processions  of  the  gladiators  reminded  the 
enthusiastic  populace  of  the  triumphal  entries  of  their 
conquerors  into  the  Roman  capital.  Nothing  so 
glutted  the  appetite  and  quenched  the  thirst  of  a  cruel 


1S6  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

and  licentious  race  as  the  gorgeous  ceremonials  and 
bloody  butchery  of  the  gladiatorial  shows. 

These  contests,  strange  to  say,  first  took  place  at 
funerals,  and  were  intended  to  honor  the  dead.  In  264 
B.C.,  at  the  burial  of  D.  Junius  Brutus,  we  are  told, 
three  pairs  of  gladiators  fought  in  the  cattle  market. 
Again,  in  216  B.C.,  at  the  obsequies  of  M.  iEmilius 
Lepidus,  twenty-two  pairs  engaged  in  combat  in  the 
Forum.  And,  in  174  B.C.,  on  the  death  of  his  father, 
Titus  Flaminius  caused  seventy-four  pairs  to  fight  for 
three  days.^  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  death  of  one 
Roman  generally  called  for  that  of  several  others. 

In  time,  the  fondness  of  these  contests  had  grown  so 
great  that  generals  and  statesmen  arranged  them  on  a 
gigantic  scale  as  a  means  of  winning  the  favor  and  sup- 
port of  the  multitude.  The  Roman  proletariat  de- 
manded not  only  bread  to  satisfy  their  hunger,  but 
games  to  amuse  them  in  their  hours  of  idleness.  Au- 
gustus not  only  gave  money  and  rations  to  200,000 
idlers,  but  inaugurated  gladiatorial  shows  in  which 
10,000  combatants  fought.  Not  only  men  but  wild 
beasts  were  brought  into  the  arena.  Pompey  arranged 
a  fight  of  500  lions,  18  elephants  and  410  other  fero- 
cious animals,  brought  from  Africa.  In  a  chase  ar- 
ranged by  Augustus,  A.D.  5,  36  crocodiles  were  killed 
in  the  Flaminian  circus,  which  was  flooded  for 
the  purpose.  Caligula  brought  400  bears  into  the 
arena  to  fight  with  an  equal  number  of  African  wild 
animals.  But  all  previous  shows  were  surpassed  in 
the  magnificent  games  instituted  by  Trajan,  A.D.  106, 

1  Fisher,  "The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,"  p.  213. 


GR^CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  257 

to  celebrate  his  victories  on  the  Danube.  These  games 
lasted  four  months;  and,  in  them,  10,000  gladiators 
fought,  and  11,000  beasts  were  slain. 

Such  was  the  thirst  for  blood,  and  to  such  a  pitch 
had  the  fury  of  the  passions  reached  at  the  beginning 
of  the  empire  that  Romans  were  no  longer  satisfied 
with  small  fights  by  single  pairs.  They  began  to  de- 
mand regular  battles  and  a  larger  flow  of  blood.  And 
to  please  the  populace,  Julius  Caesar  celebrated  his 
triumph  by  a  real  battle  in  the  circus.  On  each  side 
were  arrayed  500  foot  soldiers,  300  cavalrymen,  and  20 
elephants  bearing  soldiers  in  towers  upon  their  backs. 
This  was  no  mimic  fray,  but  an  actual  battle  in  which 
blood  was  shed  and  men  were  killed.  To  vary  the  en- 
tertainment, Caesar  also  arranged  a  sea  fight.  He 
caused  a  lake  to  be  dug  out  on  Mars  Field,  and  placed 
battleships  upon  it  which  represented  Tyrian  and 
Egyptian  fleets.  These  he  caused  to  be  manned  by  a 
thousand  soldiers  and  2,000  oarsmen.  A  bloody  fight 
then  ensued  between  men  who  had  no  other  motive 
in  killing  each  other  than  to  furnish  a  Roman  holi- 
day. Augustus  also  arranged  a  sea  fight  upon  an 
artificial  lake  where  3,000  men  were  engaged.  But 
both  these  battles  were  eclipsed  by  the  great  sea 
fight  which  the  emperor  Claudius  caused  to  be 
fought  on  Lake  Fucinus,  in  the  presence  of  a  great 
multitude  that  lined  the  shore.  Nineteen  thousand 
men  engaged  in  the  bloody  struggle.  On  an  eminence 
overlooking  the  lake,  the  Empress  Agrippina,  in  gor- 
geous costume,  sat  by  the  side  of  the  emperor  and 
watched  the  battle. 


25?  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Announcement  of  gladiatorial  fights  in  the  amphi- 
theater was  made  by  posters  on  the  walls  of  the  city. 
In  these  advertisements,  the  number  and  names  of  the 
fighters  were  announced.  On  the  day  of  the  perform- 
ance a  solemn  procession  of  gladiators,  walking  in 
couples,  passed  through  the  streets  to  the  arena.  The 
arrangements  of  the  building  and  the  manner  of  the 
fights  were  so  ordered  as  to  arouse  to  the  highest  pitch 
of  excitement  the  passions  and  expectations  of  the 
spectators.  The  citizens  were  required  to  wear  the 
white  toga.  The  lower  rows  of  seats  were  occupied  by 
senators,  in  whose  midst  were  the  boxes  occupied  by 
the  imperial  family.  The  equestrian  order  occupied 
places  immediately  above  the  senators.  The  citizens 
were  seated  next  after  the  equestrians ;  and  in  the  top- 
most rows,  on  benches,  were  gathered  the  Roman  rab- 
ble. An  immense  party-colored  awning,  stretched 
above  the  multitude,  reflected  into  the  arena  its  varie- 
gated hues.  Strains  of  music  filled  the  air  while 
preparations  for  the  combat  were  being  made.  The 
atmosphere  of  the  amphitheater  was  kept  cool  and 
fragrant  by  frequent  sprays  of  perfume.  The  regular 
combat  was  preceded  by  a  mock  fight  with  blunt 
weapons.  Then  followed  arrangements  for  the  life- 
and-death  struggle.  The  manager  of  the  games  finally 
gave  the  command,  and  the  fight  was  on.  When  one 
of  the  gladiators  was  wounded,  the  words  "  hoc  habet  " 
were  shouted.  The  wounded  man  fell  to  the  earth, 
dropped  his  weapon,  and,  holding  up  his  forefinger, 
begged  his  life  from  the  people.  If  mercy  was  refused 
him,  he  was  compelled  to  renew  the  combat  or  to  sub- 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  259 

mit  to  the  death  stroke  of  his  antagonist.  Attendants 
were  at  hand  with  hot  irons  to  apply  to  the  victim  to 
see  that  death  was  not  simulated.  If  life  was  not  ex- 
tinct, the  fallen  gladiator  was  dragged  out  to  the  dead 
room,  and  there  dispatched.  Servants  then  ran  into 
the  arena  and  scattered  sand  over  the  blood-drenched 
ground.  Other  fighters  standing  in  readiness,  immedi- 
ately rushed  in  to  renew  the  contest.  Thus  the  fight 
went  on  until  the  Roman  populace  was  glutted  with 
butchery  and  blood. 

Gladiators  were  chosen  from  the  strongest  and  most 
athletic  among  slaves  and  condemned  criminals.  Thra- 
cians,  Gauls,  and  Germans  were  captured  and  enslaved 
for  the  purpose  of  being  sacrificed  in  the  arena.  They 
were  trained  with  the  greatest  care  in  gladiatorial 
schools.  The  most  famous  of  these  institutions  was  at 
Capua  in  Italy.  It  was  here  that  Spartacus,  a  young 
Thracian,  of  noble  ancestry,  excited  an  insurrection 
that  soon  spread  throughout  all  Italy  and  threatened 
the  destruction  of  Rome.  Addressing  himself  to  sev- 
enty of  his  fellow-gladiators,  Spartacus  is  said  to  have 
made  a  bitter  and  impassioned  speech  in  which  he  pro- 
posed that,  if  they  must  die,  they  should  die  fighting 
their  enemies  and  not  themselves;  that,  if  they  were  to 
engage  in  bloody  battles,  these  battles  should  be  fought 
under  the  open  sky  in  behalf  of  life  and  liberty,  and 
not  in  the  amphitheater  to  furnish  pastime  and  enter- 
tainment to  their  masters  and  oppressors.  The  speech 
had  its  effect.  The  band  of  fighters  broke  out  of 
Capua,  and  took  refuge  in  the  crater  of  Mount  Vesu- 
vius   {y;^  B.C.).     Spartacus  became  the  leader,  with 


26o  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

Crixus  and  CEnomaus,  two  Celtic  gladiators,  as  lieu- 
tenants. Their  ranks  soon  swelled  to  the  proportions 
of  an  army,  through  accessions  of  slaves  and  despe- 
radoes from  the  neighborhood  of  the  volcano.  During 
two  years,  they  terrorized  all  Italy,  defeated  two  con- 
suls, and  burned  many  cities.  Crixus  was  defeated  and 
killed  at  Mount  Gargarus  in  Apulia  by  the  praEtor 
Arrius.  Spartacus  compelled  three  hundred  Roman 
prisoners,  whom  he  had  captured,  to  fight  as  gladia- 
tors, following  Roman  custom,  at  the  grave  of  his 
fallen  comrade  and  lieutenant.  Finally,  he  himself 
was  slain,  sword  in  hand,  having  killed  two  centurions 
before  he  fell.  With  the  death  of  their  leaders,  the 
insurgents  either  surrendered  or  fled.  Those  who  were 
captured  were  crucified.  It  is  said  that  the  entire  way 
from  Capua  to  Rome  was  marked  by  crosses  on  which 
their  bodies  were  suspended,  to  the  number  of  ten 
thousand.^ 

Throughout  Italy  were  amphitheaters  for  gladiato- 
rial games.  But  the  largest  and  most  celebrated  of  all 
was  the  Coliseum  at  Rome.  Its  ruins  are  still  stand- 
ing. It  was  originally  called  the  Flavian  Amphithea- 
ter. This  vast  building  was  begun  A.D.  72,  upon  the 
site  of  the  reservoir  of  Nero,  by  the  emperor  Vespa- 
sian, who  built  as  far  as  the  third  row  of  arches,  the 
last  two  rows  being  finished  by  Titus  after  his  return 
from  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem.  It  is  said  that  twelve 
thousand  captive  Jews  were  employed  in  this  work,  as 
the  Hebrews  were  employed  in  building  the  Pyramids 
of  Egypt,  and  that  the  external  walls  alone  cost  nearly 

1  Pliny,  Ep.  X.  38. 


u 

g 


GRiE CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  261 

four  millions  of  dollars.  It  consists  of  four  stories:  the 
first,  Doric;  the  second,  Ionic;  the  third  and  fourth, 
Corinthian.  Its  circumference  is  nearly  two  thou- 
sand feet;  its  length,  six  hundred  and  twenty  feet;  and 
its  width,  five  hundred  and  thirteen.  The  entrance  for 
the  emperor  was  between  two  arches  facing  the  Esqui- 
line,  where  there  was  no  cornice.  The  arena  was  sur- 
rounded by  a  wall  sufficiently  high  to  protect  the  spec- 
tators from  the  wild  beasts,  which  were  introduced  by 
subterranean  passages,  closed  by  huge  gates  from  the 
side.  The  Amphitheater  is  said  to  have  been  capable 
of  seating  eighty-seven  thousand  people,  and  was  in- 
augurated by  gladiatorial  games  that  lasted  one  hun- 
dred days,  and  in  which  five  thousand  beasts  were 
slain.  The  emperor  Commodus  himself  fought  in  the 
Coliseum,  and  killed  both  gladiators  and  wild  beasts. 
He  insisted  on  calling  himself  Hercules,  was  dressed  in 
a  lion's  skin,  and  had  his  hair  sprinkled  with  gold  dust. 

An  oriental  monk,  Talemachus,  was  so  horrified  at 
the  sight  of  the  gladiatorial  games,  that  he  rushed  into 
the  midst  of  the  arena,  and  besought  the  spectators  to 
have  them  stopped.  Instead  of  listening  to  him,  they 
put  him  to  death. 

The  first  martyrdom  in  the  Coliseum  was  that  of  St. 
Ignatius,  said  to  have  been  the  child  especially  blessed 
by  our  Savior,  the  disciple  of  John,  and  the  companion 
of  Polycarp,  who  was  sent  to  Rome  from  Antioch 
when  he  was  bishop.  When  brought  into  the^  arena, 
St.  Ignatius  knelt  down  and  exclaimed:  "  Romans  who 
are  here  present,  know  that  I  have  not  been  brought 
into  this  place  for  any  crime,  but  in  order  that  by  this 


262  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

means  I  may  merit  the  fruition  of  the  glory  of  God, 
for  love  of  whom  I  have  been  made  a  prisoner.  I  am 
as  the  grain  of  the  field  and  must  be  ground  by  the 
teeth  of  the  lions  that  I  may  become  bread  fit  for  His 
table."  The  lions  were  then  let  loose,  and  devoured 
him,  except  the  larger  bones  which  the  Christians  col- 
lected during  the  night. 

The  spot  where  the  Christian  martyrs  suffered  was 
for  a  long  time  marked  by  a  tall  cross  devoutly  kissed 
by  the  faithful.  The  Pulpit  of  the  Coliseum  was  used 
for  the  stormy  sermons  of  Gavazzi,  who  called  the 
people  to  arms  from  thence  in  the  Revolution  of 
March,  1848. 

Gr(2co-Roman  Social  Depravity,  Born  of  Religion 
and  Traceable  to  the  Gods. — The  modern  mind  iden- 
tifies true  religion  with  perfect  purity  of  heart  and 
with  boundless  love.  "  Do  unto  others  as  you  would 
have  others  do  unto  you  "  is  the  leading  aphorism  of 
both  the  Hebrew  and  Christian  faiths.  The  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  is  the  chart  of  the  soul  on  the  sea  of  life; 
and  its  beatitudes  are  the  glorifications  of  the  virtues 
of  meekness,  mercy,  and  peace.  To  the  mind  imbued 
with  the  divine  precepts  of  the  Savior,  it  seems  incredi- 
ble that  religion  should  have  ever  been  the  direct 
source  of  crime  and  sin.  It  is,  nevertheless,  a  well- 
established  fact  that  the  Roman  and  Greek  mytholo- 
gies were  the  potent  causes  of  political  corruption  and 
social  impurity  in  both  Italy  and  Greece.  Nothing 
better  illustrates  this  truth  than  the  abominable  prac- 
tice that  found  its  inspiration  and  excuse  in  the  myth 
of  the  rape  of  Ganymede.    The  guilty  passion  of  Zeus 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  161, 

for  the  beautiful  boy  whom  he,  himself,  in  the  form  of 
an  eagle,  had  snatched  up  from  earth  and  carried  away 
to  Olympus  to  devote  to  shameful  and  unnatural  uses, 
was  the  foundation,  in  Greece,  of  the  most  loathsome 
habit  that  ever  disgraced  the  conduct  of  men.  Passion- 
ate fondness  for  beautiful  boys,  called  paiderastia  in 
Greek,  termed  sodomy  in  modern  criminal  law,  was 
the  curse  and  infamy  of  both  Roman  and  Grecian  life. 
This  unnatural  vice  was  not  confined  to  the  vulgar  and 
degenerate.  Men  of  letters,  poets,  statesmen  and  phi- 
losophers, debased  themselves  with  this  form  of  pollu- 
tion. It  was  even  legalized  by  the  laws  of  Crete  and 
Sparta.  Polybius  tells  us  that  many  Romans  paid  as 
much  as  a  talent  ($1,000)  for  a  beautifully  formed 
youth.  This  strange  perversion  of  the  sexual  instincts 
was  marked  by  all  the  tenderness  and  sweetness  of  a 
modern  courtship  or  a  honeymoon.  The  victim  of  this 
degrading  and  disgusting  passion  treated  the  beautiful 
boy  with  all  the  delicacy  and  feeling  generally  paid  a 
newly  wedded  wife.  Kisses  and  caresses  were  at  times 
showered  upon  him.  At  other  times,  he  became  an 
object  of  insane  jealousy. 

An  obscene  couplet  in  Suetonius  attributes  this  filthy 
habit  to  Julius  Caesar  in  the  matter  of  an  abominable 
relationship  with  the  King  of  Bithynia.^  "  So  strong 
was  the  influence  of  the  prevalent  epidemic  on  Plato, 
that  he  had  lost  all  sense  of  the  love  of  women,  and  in 
his  descriptions  of  Eros,  divine  as  well  as  human,  his 
thoughts  were  centered  only  in  his  boy  passion.  The 
result  in  Greece  confessedly  was  that  the  inclination 

^  Suetonius,  "Julius  Caesar,"  Chap.  XLIX. 


264  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

for  a  woman  was  looked  upon  as  low  and  dishonorable, 
while  that  for  a  youth  was  the  only  one  worthy  of  a 
man  of  education."  ^ 

A  moment's  reflection  will  convince  the  most  skep- 
tical of  the  progress  of  morality  and  the  advance  of 
civilization.  That  which  philosophers  and  emperors 
not  only  approved  but  practiced  in  the  palmiest  days 
of  the  commonwealths  of  Greece  and  Rome,  is  to-day 
penalized;  and  the  person  guilty  of  the  offense  is  so- 
cially ostracized  and  branded  with  infamy  and  con- 
tempt. 

The  above  is  only  one  of  many  illustrations  of  the 
demoralizing  influence  of  the  myths.  The  Greeks 
looked  to  the  gods  as  models  of  behavior,  and  could 
see  nothing  wrong  in  paiderastia,  since  both  Zeus  and 
Apollo  had  practiced  it.  Nearly  every  crime  com- 
mitted by  the  Greeks  and  Romans  was  sought  to  be 
excused  on  the  ground  that  the  gods  had  done  the  same 
thing.  Euthyphro  justified  mistreatment  of  his  own 
father  on  the  ground  that  Zeus  had  chased  Cronos,  his 
father,  from  the  skies. 

Homer  was  not  only  the  Bible,  but  the  schoolbook 
of  Grecian  boys  and  girls  throughout  the  world;  and 
their  minds  were  saturated  at  an  early  age  with  the  es- 
capades of  the  gods  and  goddesses  as  told  by  the  im- 
mortal bard.  Plato,  in  the  "  Republic,"  deprecates  the 
influence  of  the  Homeric  myths  upon  the  youth  of 
Greece,  when  he  says:  "  They  are  likely  to  have  a  bad 
effect  on  those  who  hear  them;  for  everybody  will 
begin  to  excuse  his  own  vices  when  he  is  convinced  that 

^  Dollinger,  vol.  ii.  pp.  253,  254. 


GR.ECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  265 

similar  wickednesses  are  always  being  perpetrated  by 
the  kindred  of  the  gods."  And  Seneca  thus  condemns 
the  moral  effect  of  the  myth  of  Zeus  and  Alcmene: 
"  What  else  is  this  appeal  to  the  precedent  of  the  gods 
for,  but  to  inflame  our  lusts,  and  to  furnish  a  free  li- 
cense and  excuse  for  the  corrupt  act  under  shelter  of 
its  divine  prototype?  "  "  This,"  says  the  same  author 
in  another  treatise,  "  has  led  to  no  other  result  than  to 
deprive  sin  of  its  shame  in  man's  eyes,  when  he  saw  that 
the  gods  were  no  better  than  himself." 

We  have  seen  that,  in  the  matter  of  the  multiplicity 
of  the  gods,  there  were  deities  of  the  baser  as  well  as 
of  the  better  passions,  and  of  criminal  as  well  as  virtu- 
ous propensities.  Pausanias  tells  us  that,  in  his  day,  on 
the  road  to  Pellene,  there  were  statues  of  Hermes 
Dolios  (the  cheat),  and  that  the  worshipers  of  this 
god  believed  that  he  was  always  ready  to  help  them  in 
their  intrigues  and  adventures.  The  same  writer  also 
tells  us  that  young  maidens  of  Troezene  dedicated  their 
girdles  to  Athene  Apaturia,  the  deceiver,  for  having 
cunningly  betrayed  ^^thra  into  the  hands  of  Neptune. 
The  festivals  of  Bacchus  were  far-famed  in  ancient 
times  for  the  drunken  debauches  and  degrading  cere- 
monies that  accompanied  them.  The  Attic  feasts  of 
Pan  were  celebrated  with  every  circumstance  of  low 
buffoonery.  The  solemnities  of  the  Aphrodisia  were 
akin  to  the  bacchanalian  orgies  in  all  the  features  of 
inebriety  and  lust.  The  name  of  the  goddess  of  love 
and  beauty  was  blazoned  across  the  portal  of  more 
than  one  Greek  and  Roman  brothel.  The  Aphrodite- 
Lamia  at  Athens  and   the  Aphrodite-Stratonikis   at 


iSe  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Smyrna  were  the  favorite  resorts  of  the  most  famous 
courtesans  of  antiquity.  Venus  was  the  recognized 
goddess  of  the  harlots.  A  thousand  of  them  guarded 
her  temple  at  Corinth;  and,  when  an  altar  was  erected 
to  her  at  the  Colline  gate  in  Rome,  in  the  year  183 
A.U.C.,  they  celebrated  a  great  feast  in  her  honor,  and 
dedicated  chaplets  of  myrtle  and  roses,  as  a  means  of 
obtaining  her  favor  as  the  guardian  divinity  of  their 
calling. 

What  more  could  be  expected,  then,  of  the  morality 
of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  when  we  consider  the 
nature  of  their  religion  and  the  character  of  their 
gods?  Jupiter  and  Apollo  were  notorious  rakes  and 
libertines;  Venus  and  Flora  were  brazen-faced  cour- 
tesans; Harmonia  was  a  Phrygian  dancer,  who  had 
been  seduced  by  Cadmus;  Hercules  was  a  gladiator; 
Pan  was  a  buffoon;  Bacchus  was  a  drunkard,  and 
Mercury  was  a  highway  robber.  And  not  only  in  the 
poems  of  Homer  and  Hesiod  did  the  Greek  and 
Roman  youth  learn  these  things,  but  from  the  plays  of 
the  theaters  and  from  plastic  art  as  well.  If  we  except 
the  gladiatorial  fights  in  the  amphitheaters,  nothing 
was  more  cruel  and  unchaste  than  Greek  and  Roman 
tragedy  and  comedy.  At  the  time  of  Christ,  the  tastes 
and  appetites  of  the  multitude  had  grown  so  fierce  and 
depraved  that  ordinary  spectacles  were  regarded  as 
commonplace  and  insipid.  Lifelike  realities  were  de- 
manded from  the  actors  on  the  stage;  and  accordingly, 
the  hero  who  played  the  role  of  the  robber  chief, 
Laureolus,  was  actually  crucified  before  the  specta- 
tors, and  was  then  torn  to  pieces  by  a  hungry  bear. 


GR.^ CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  267 

The  burning  of  Hercules  on  Mount  CEta  and  the 
emasculation  of  Atys  were  sought  to  be  realized  on  the 
stage  by  the  actual  burning  and  emasculation  of  con- 
demned criminals.  Lustful  as  well  as  cruel  appetites 
were  inflamed  and  fed  by  theatrical  representations  of 
the  intrigues  and  adventures  of  the  gods  and  goddesses. 
Pantomimes  and  mimic  dances,  with  flute  accompani- 
ment, were  employed  to  reproduce  the  amours  and 
passionate  devotions  of  the  inhabitants  of  Olympus. 
The  guilty  loves  of  Aphrodite  with  Mars  and  Adonis, 
the  adventures  of  Jupiter  and  Apollo  with  the  wives 
and  daughters  of  mortals,  were  the  plays  most  fre- 
quently presented  and  most  wildly  applauded.  And 
the  ignorant  rabble  were  not  the  only  witnesses  of  these 
spectacles.  "  The  sacerdotal  colleges  and  authorities," 
says  Arnobius,  "  flamens,  and  augurs,  and  chaste  ves- 
tals, all  have  seats  at  these  public  amusements.  There 
are  seated  the  collective  people  and  senate,  consuls  and 
consulars,  while  Venus,  the  mother  of  the  Roman  race, 
is  danced  to  the  life,  and  in  shameless  mimicry  is  rep- 
resented as  reveling  through  all  the  phases  of  mere- 
tricious lust.  The  great  mother,  too,  is  danced;  the 
Dindymene  of  Pessinus,  in  spite  of  her  age,  surrender- 
ing herself  to  disgusting  passion  in  the  embraces  of  a 
cowherd.  The  supreme  ruler  of  the  world  is  himself 
brought  in,  without  respect  to  his  name  or  majesty,  to 
play  the  part  of  an  adulterer,  masking  himself  in  order 
to  deceive  chaste  wives,  and  take  the  place  of  their 
husbands  in  the  nuptial  bed."  ^ 

Not  only  gladiatorial  games  and  theatrical  shows, 

^  DoUinger,  vol.  ii.  pp.  205,  206. 


a68  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

but  painting  and  sculpture  as  well,  served  to  corrupt 
and  demoralize  Roman  and  Greek  manners.  Nor  is 
there  any  prudery  in  this  statement.  The  masterpieces 
of  the  Greek  artists  have  been  the  astonishment  and  de- 
spair of  all  succeeding  ages;  and  the  triumphs  of  mod- 
ern art  have  been  but  poor  imitations  of  the  models  of 
the  first  masters.  But  it  is,  nevertheless,  true  that  the 
embodiment  in  marble  of  certain  obscene  myths  was 
destructive  of  ancient  morals.  The  paintings  in  the 
temples  and  houses  of  the  cities  of  Greece  and  Italy 
were  a  constant  menace  to  the  mental  purity  of  those 
who  gazed  upon  them.  The  statue  of  Ganymede  at  the 
side  of  Zeus  was  a  perpetual  reminder  to  the  youth  of 
Athens  of  the  originator  of  the  loathsome  custom  of 
paiderastia.  The  paintings  of  Leda  and  the  swan,  of 
the  courtship  of  Dionysus  and  Ariadne,  of  the  naked 
Aphrodite  ensnared  and  caught  in  the  net  with  Ares 
that  adorned  the  walls  and  ceilings  of  Greek  and  Ro- 
man homes,  were  not  too  well  calculated  to  inspire 
pure  and  virtuous  thoughts  in  the  minds  and  hearts  of 
tender  youths  and  modest  maidens  who  looked  upon 
and  contemplated  them.  At  Athens,  especially,  was 
the  corrupting  influence  of  painting  and  plastic  art 
most  deeply  felt.  "  At  every  step,"  says  Dollinger, 
*'  which  a  Greek  or  Roman  took,  he  was  surrounded 
by  images  of  his  gods  and  memorials  of  their  mythic 
history.  Not  the  temples  only,  but  streets  and  public 
squares,  house  walls,  domestic  implements  and  drink- 
ing vessels,  were  all  covered  and  incrusted  with  orna- 
ments of  the  kind.  His  eye  could  rest  nowhere,  not  a 
piece  of  money  could  he  take  into  his  hand  without 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  269 

confronting  a  god.  And  in  this  way,  through  the 
magical  omnipresence  of  plastic  art,  the  memory  of  his 
gods  had  sunk  into  his  soul  indelibly,  grown  up 
with  every  operation  of  his  intellect,  and  inseparably 
blended  with  every  picture  of  his  imagination."  ^ 

It  can  thus  be  easily  imagined  how  close  the  connec- 
tion between  the  social  depravity  and  the  religion  of 
the  Greeks  and  Romans.  What  was  right  in  the  con- 
duct of  the  gods,  men  could  not  deem  sinful  in  their 
own  behavior.  Indeed,  lewd  and  lascivious  acts  were 
frequently  proclaimed  not  only  right,  but  sacred, 
because  they  had  been  both  sanctioned  and  committed 
by  the  gods  themselves.  *'  As  impurity,"  says  Dol- 
linger,  "  formed  a  part  of  religion,  people  had  no 
scruples  in  using  the  temple  and  its  adjoining  build- 
ings for  the  satisfaction  of  their  lust.  The  construction 
of  many  of  the  temples  and  the  prevalent  gloom 
favored  this.  '  It  is  a  matter  of  general  notoriety,'  Ter- 
tullian  says,  '  that  the  temples  are  the  very  places 
where  adulteries  were  arranged,  and  procuresses  pur- 
sue their  victims  between  the  altars.'  In  the  chambers 
of  the  priests  and  ministers  of  the  temple,  impurity 
was  committed  amid  clouds  of  incense;  and  this, 
Minucius  adds,  more  frequently  than  in  the  privileged 
haunts  of  this  sin.  The  sanctuaries  and  priests  of  Isis 
at  Rome  were  specially  notorious  in  this  respect.  *  As 
this  Isis  was  the  concubine  of  Jove  herself,  she  also 
makes  prostitutes  of  others,'  Ovid  said.  Still  more 
shameful  sin  was  practiced  in  the  temples  of  the  Pessi- 
nuntine  mother  of  the  gods,  where  men  prostituted 

^  Dollinger,  vol.  ii.  p.  207. 


270  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

themselves  and  made  a  boast  of  their  shame   after- 
wards." ^ 

The  Bacchanalian  Orgies. — The  most  interesting 
passage  of  ancient  literature  dealing  with  social  life  in 
its  relation  to  religious  observances,  is  an  extract  from 
Livy,  the  most  elegant  of  Roman  historians.  This  pas- 
sage describes  the  bacchanalian  orgies,  and  gives  ex- 
quisite touches  to  certain  phases  of  ancient  Roman 
social  life.  Its  insertion  here  entire  is  excused  on  the 
ground  of  its  direct  bearing  upon  the  subject  matter 
of  this  chapter: 

A  Greek  of  mean  condition  came,  first,  into  Etruria;  not 
with  one  of  the  many  trades  which  his  nation,  of  all  others 
the  most  skilful  in  the  cultivation  of  the  mind  and  body,  has 
introduced  among  us,  but  a  low  operator  in  sacrifices,  and  a 
soothsayer;  nor  was  he  one  who,  by  open  religious  rites,  and 
by  publicly  professing  his  calling  and  teaching,  imbued  the 
minds  of  his  followers  with  terror,  but  a  priest  of  secret 
and  nocturnal  rites.  These  mysterious  rites  were,  at  first,  im- 
parted to  a  few,  but  afterwards  communicated  to  great 
numbers,  both  men  and  women.  To  their  religious  perform- 
ances were  added  the  pleasures  of  wine  and  feasting,  to  al- 
lure a  greater  number  of  proselytes.  When  wine,  lascivious 
discourse,  night,  and  the  intercourse  of  the  sexes  had  extin- 
guished every  sentiment  of  modesty,  then  debaucheries  of 
every  kind  began  to  be  practiced,  as  every  person  found  at 
hand  that  sort  of  enjoyment  to  which  he  was  disposed  by 
the  passion  predominant  in  his  nature.  Nor  were  they  con- 
fined to  one  species  of  vice — the  promiscuous  intercourse  of 
free-born  men  and  women;  but  from  this  store-house  of  vil- 
lany  proceeded  false  witnesses,  counterfeit  seals,  false  evi- 
dences, and  pretended  discoveries.  From  the  same  place,  too, 
proceeded  poison  and  secret  murders,  so  that  in  some  cases, 
even  the  bodies  could  not  be  found  for  burial.    Many  of  their 

1  Dollinger,  vol.  ii.  p.  208. 


P4 


GR.E CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  271 

audacious  deeds  were  brought  about  by  treachery,  but  most 
of  them  by  force;  it  served  to  conceal  the  violence,  that  on 
account  of  the  loud  shouting,  and  the  noise  of  drums  and 
cymbals,  none  of  the  cries  uttered  by  the  persons  suffering 
violation  or  murder  could  be  heard  abroad. 

The  infection  of  this  mischief,  like  that  from  the  con- 
tagion of  disease,  spread  from  Etruria  to  Rome;  where,  the 
size  of  the  city  affording  greater  room  for  such  evils,  and 
more  means  of  concealment,  cloaked  it  at  first;  but  informa- 
tion of  it  was  at  length  brought  to  the  consul,  Postumius, 
principally  in  the  following  manner.  Publius  i^butius,  whose 
father  had  held  equestrian  rank  in  the  army,  was  left  an  or- 
phan, and  his  guardians  dying,  he  was  educated  under  the 
eye  of  his  mother  Duronia,  and  his  stepfather  Titus  Sem- 
pronius  Rutilus.  Duronia  was  entirely  devoted  to  her  hus- 
band; and  Sempronius,  having  managed  the  guardianship  in 
such  a  manner  that  he  could  not  give  an  account  of  the  prop- 
erty, wished  that  his  ward  should  be  either  made  away  with, 
or  bound  to  compliance  with  his  will  by  some  strong  tie. 
The  Bacchanalian  rites  were  the  only  way  to  effect  the  ruin 
of  the  youth.  His  mother  told  him,  that,  "  During  his  sick- 
ness, she  had  made  a  vow  for  him,  that  if  he  should  recover, 
she  would  initiate  him  among  the  Bacchanahans;  that  being, 
through  the  kindness  of  the  gods,  bound  by  this  vow,  she 
wished  now  to  fulfil  it;  that  it  was  necessary  he  should  pre- 
serve chastity  for  ten  days,  and  on  the  tenth,  after  he  should 
have  supped  and  washed  himself,  she  would  conduct  him 
into  the  place  of  worship."  There  was  a  freedwoman  called 
Hispala  Fecenia,  a  noted  courtesan,  but  deserving  of  a  bet- 
ter lot  than  the  mode  of  life  to  which  she  had  been  accus- 
torned  when  very  young,  and  a  slave,  and  by  which  she  had 
maintained  herself  since  her  manumission.  As  they  lived  in 
the  same  neighborhood,  an  intimacy  subsisted  between  her 
and  i^butius,  which  was  far  from  being  injurious  either  to 
the  young  man's  character  or  property;  for  he  had  been  loved 
and  wooed  by  her  unsolicited;  and  as  his  friends  supplied 
his  wants  illiberally,  he  was  supported  by  the  generosity  of 
this  woman;  nay,  to  such  a  length  did  she  go  under  the  in- 
fluence of  her  affection,  that,  on  the  death  of  her  patron, 


272  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

because  she  was  under  the  protection  of  no  one,  having  peti- 
tioned the  tribunes  and  praetors  for  a  guardian,  when  she 
was  mai<;ing  her  will,  she  constituted  iEbutius  her  sole  heir. 
As  such  pledges  of  mutual  love  subsisted,  and  as  neither 
kept  anything  secret  from  the  other,  the  young  man  jokingly 
bid  her  not  be  surprised  if  he  separated  himself  from  her 
for  a  few  nights;  as,  "on  account  of  a  religious  duty,  to 
discharge  a  vow  made  for  his  health,  he  intended  to  be  in- 
itiated among  the  Bacchanalians."  On  hearing  this,  the 
woman,  greatly  alarmed,  cried  out,  *'  May  the  gods  will 
more  favorably!  "  affirming  that  "  It  would  be  better,  both 
for  him  and  her,  to  lose  their  lives  than  that  he  should  do 
such  a  thing:"  she  then  imprecated  curses,  vengeance,  and 
destruction  on  the  head  of  those  who  advised  him  to  such  a 
step.  The  young  man,  surprised  both  at  her  expressions  and 
at  the  violence  of  her  alarm,  bid  her  refrain  from  curses, 
for  "  it  was  his  mother  who  ordered  him  to  do  so,  with  the 
approbation  of  his  stepfather."  "  Then,"  said  she,  "  your 
stepfather  (for  perhaps  it  is  not  allowable  to  censure  your 
mother),  is  in  haste  to  destroy,  by  that  act,  your  chastity, 
your  character,  your  hopes  and  your  life."  To  him,  now 
surprised  by  such  language,  and  inquiring  what  was  the  mat- 
ter, she  said,  (after  imploring  the  favor  and  pardon  of  the 
gods  and  goddesses,  if,  compelled  by  her  regard  for  him, 
she  disclosed  what  ought  not  to  be  revealed),  that  "when 
in  service,  she  had  gone  into  that  place  of  worship,  as  an 
attendant  on  her  mistress,  but  that,  since  she  had  obtained 
her  liberty,  she  had  never  once  gone  near  it :  that  she  knew 
it  to  be  the  receptacle  of  all  kinds  of  debaucheries;  that  it 
was  well  known  that,  for  two  years  past,  no  one  older  than 
twenty  had  been  initiated  there.  When  any  person  was  in- 
troduced he  was  delivered  as  a  victim  to  the  priests,  who  led 
him  away  to  a  place  resounding  with  shouts,  the  sound  of 
music,  and  the  beating  of  cymbals  and  drums,  lest  his  cries 
while  suffering  violation,  should  be  heard  abroad."  She 
then  entreated  and  besought  him  to  put  an  end  to  that  matter 
in  some  way  or  other;  and  not  to  plunge  himself  into  a  situa- 
tion, where  he  must  first  suffer,  and  afterwards  commit, 
everything  that  was  abominable.    Nor  did  she  quit  him  until 


GR.^CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  273 

the  young  man  gave  her  his  promise  to  keep  himself  clear  of 
those  rites. 

When  he  came  home,  and  his  mother  made  mention  of 
such  things  pertaining  to  the  ceremony  as  were  to  be  per- 
formed on  that  day,  and  on  the  several  following  days,  he 
told  her  that  he  would  not  perform  any  of  them,  nor  did 
he  intend  to  be  initiated.  His  i>iepfather  was  present  at  this 
discourse.  Immediately  the  woman  observed  that  "  he  could 
not  deprive  himself  of  the  company  of  Hispala  for  ten 
nights;  that  he  was  so  fascinated  by  the  caresses  and  baneful 
influence  of  that  serpent,  that  he  retained  no  respect  for  his 
mother  or  stepfather,  or  even  the  gods  themselves."  His 
mother  on  one  side  and  his  stepfather  on  the  other  loading 
him  with  reproaches,  drove  him  out  of  the  house,  assisted 
by  four  slaves.  The  youth  on  this  repaired  to  his  aunt 
^butia,  told  her  the  reason  of  his  being  turned  out  by  his 
mother,  and  the  next  day,  by  her  advice,  gave  information 
of  the  affair  to  the  consul  Postumius,  without  any  witnesses 
of  the  interview.  The  consul  dismissed  him,  with  an  order 
to  come  again  on  the  third  day  following.  In  the  meantime, 
he  inquired  of  his  mother-in-law,  Sulpicia,  a  woman  of  re- 
spectable character,  "whether  she  knew  an  old  matron  called 
iEbutia,  who  lived  on  the  Aventine  hill?  "  When  she  had 
answered  that  "  she  knew  her  well,  and  that  iEbutia  was  a 
woman  of  virtue,  and  of  the  ancient  purity  of  morals;  "  he 
said  that  he  required  a  conference  with  her,  and  that  a  mes- 
senger should  be  sent  for  her  to  come.  ^Ebutia,  on  receiving 
the  message,  came  to  Sulpicia's  house,  and  the  consul,  soon 
after,  coming  in,  as  if  by  accident,  introduced  a  conversation 
about  i^Ibutius,  her  brother's  son.  The  tears  of  the  woman 
burst  forth,  and  she  began  to  lament  the  unhappy  lot  of  the 
youth :  who  after  being  robbed  of  his  property  by  persons 
whom  it  least  of  all  became,  was  then  residing  with  her, 
being  driven  out  of  doors  by  his  mother,  because,  being  a 
good  youth  (may  the  gods  be  propitious  to  him),  he  refused 
to  be  initiated  in  ceremonies  devoted  to  lewdness,  as  report 
goes. 

The  consul  thinking  that  he  had  made  sufficient  inquiries 
concerning  ^Ebutius,  and  that  his  testimony  was  unquestion- 


274  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

able,  having  dismissed  iEbutia,  requested  his  mother-in-law 
to  send  again  to  the  Aventine,  and  bring  from  that  quarter 
Hispala,  a  freedwoman,  not  unknown  in  that  neighborhood; 
for  there  were  some  queries  which  he  wished  to  mal<.e  of 
her.  Hispala  being  alarmed  because  she  was  being  sent  for 
by  a  woman  of  such  high  rank  and  respectable  character,  and 
being  ignorant  of  the  cause,  after  she  saw  the  lictors  in  the 
porch,  the  multitude  attending  to  the  consul  and  the  consul 
himself,  was  very  near  fainting.  The  consul  led  her  into 
the  retired  part  of  the  house,  and,  in  the  presence  of  his 
mother-in-law,  told  her,  that  she  need  not  be  uneasy,  if  she 
could  resolve  to  speak  the  truth.  She  might  receive  a  prom- 
ise of  protection  either  from  Sulpicia,  a  matron  of  such  dig- 
nified character,  or  from  himself.  That  she  ought  to  tell 
him,  what  was  accustomed  to  be  done  at  the  Bacchanalia,  in 
the  nocturnal  orgies  in  the  grove  of  Stimula.  When  the 
woman  heard  this,  such  terror  and  trembling  of  all  her  limbs 
seized  her,  that  for  a  long  time  she  was  unable  to  speak;  but 
recovering  at  length  she  said,  that  "  when  she  was  very  young, 
and  a  slave,  she  had  been  initiated,  together  with  her  mis- 
tress; but  for  several  years  past,  since  she  had  obtained  her 
liberty,  she  knew  nothing  of  what  was  done  there."  The 
consul  commended  her  so  far,  as  not  having  denied  that  she 
was  initiated,  but  charged  her  to  explain  all  the  rest  with 
the  same  sincerity;  and  told  her,  affirming  that  she  knew 
nothing  further,  that  "  there  would  not  be  the  same  tender- 
ness or  pardon  extended  to  her,  if  she  should  be  convicted 
by  another  person,  and  one  who  had  made  a  voluntary  con- 
fession; that  there  was  such  a  person,  who  had  heard  the 
whole  from  her,  and  had  given  him  a  full  account  of  it." 

The  woman,  now  thinking  without  a  doubt  that  it  must 
certainly  be  ^butius  who  had  discovered  the  secret,  threw 
herself  at  Sulpicia's  feet,  and  at  first  began  to  beseech  her, 
"  not  to  let  the  private  conversation  of  a  freedwoman  with 
her  lover  be  turned  not  only  into  a  serious  business,  but  even 
capital  charge;"  declaring  that  "she  had  spoken  of  such 
things  merely  to  frighten  him,  and  not  because  she  knew  any- 
thing of  the  kind."  On  this  Postumius,  growing  angry,  said 
*'  she  seemed  to  imagine  that  then  too  she  was  wrangling 


GR.^CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  275 

with  her  gallant  i^butius,  and  not  that  she  was  speaking  in 
the  house  of  a  most  respectable  matron,  and  to  a  consul." 
Sulpicia  raised  her,  terrified,  from  the  ground,  and  while  she 
encouraged  her  to  speak  out,  at  the  same  time  pacified  her 
son-in-law's  anger.  At  length  she  took  courage,  and,  hav- 
ing censured  severely  the  perfidy  of  i^butius,  because  he  had 
made  such  a  return  for  the  extraordinary  kindness  shown  to 
him  in  that  very  instance,  she  declared  that  "  she  stood  in 
great  dread  of  the  gods,  whose  secret  mysteries  she  was  to 
divulge;  and  in  much  greater  dread  of  the  men  implicated, 
who  would  tear  her  asunder  with  their  hands  if  she  became 
an  informer.  Therefore  she  entreated  this  favor  of  Sulpicia, 
and  likewise  of  the  consul,  that  they  would  send  her  away 
some  place  out  of  Italy,  where  she  might  pass  the  remainder 
of  her  life  in  safety."  The  consul  desired  her  to  be  of  good 
spirits,  and  said  that  It  should  be  his  care  that  she  might  live 
securely  In  Rome. 

Hispala  then  gave  a  full  account  of  the  origin  of  the  mys- 
teries. "  At  first,"  she  said,  "  those  rites  were  performed  by 
women.  No  man  used  to  be  admitted.  They  had  three 
stated  days  In  the  year  on  which  such  persons  were  Initiated 
among  the  Bacchanalians,  In  the  daytime.  The  matrons  used 
to  be  appointed  priestesses,  in  rotation.  Paculla  Minia,  a 
Campanian,  when  priestess,  made  an  alteration  in  every  par- 
ticular as  If  by  the  direction  of  the  gods.  For  she  first 
Introduced  men,  who  were  her  own  sons,  MInucIus  and  Her- 
renlus,  both  surnamed  Cerrinius;  changed  the  time  of  cele- 
bration, from  day  to  night;  and.  Instead  of  three  days  in 
the  year,  appointed  five  days  of  Initiation  In  each  month. 
From  the  time  that  the  rites  were  thus  made  common,  and 
men  were  Intermixed  with  women,  and  the  licentious  free- 
dom of  the  night  was  added,  there  was  nothing  wicked, 
nothing  flagitious,  that  had  not  been  practiced  among  them. 
There  were  more  frequent  pollution  of  men,  with  each  other, 
than  with  women.  If  any  were  less  patient  In  submitting 
to  dishonor,  or  more  averse  to  the  commission  of  vice,  they 
were  sacrificed  as  victims.  To  think  nothing  unlawful,  was 
the  grand  maxim  of  their  religion.  The  men,  as  if  bereft 
of  reason,  uttered  predictions,  with  frantic  contortions  of 


276  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

their  bodies;  the  women,  in  the  habit  of  Bacchantes,  with 
their  hair  dishevelled,  and  carrying  blazing  torches,  ran  down 
to  the  Tiber;  where,  dipping  their  torches  in  the  water,  they 
drew  them  up  again  with  the  flame  unextinguished,  being 
composed  of  native  sulphur  and  charcoal.  They  said  that 
those  men  were  carried  off  by  the  gods,  whom  the  machines 
laid  hold  of  and  dragged  from  their  view  into  secret  caves. 
These  were  such  as  refused  to  take  the  oath  of  the  society  or 
to  associate  in  their  crimes,  or  to  submit  to  defilement.  Their 
number  was  exceedingly  great  now,  almost  a  second  state  in 
themselves  and  among  them  were  many  men  and  women  of 
noble  families.  During  the  last  two  years  it  had  been  a  rule, 
that  no  person  above  the  age  of  twenty  should  be  initiated, 
for  they  sought  for  people  of  such  age  as  made  them  more 
liable  to  suffer  deception  and  personal  abuse."  When  she 
had  completed  her  information,  she  again  fell  at  the  consul's 
knees,  and  repeated  the  same  entreaties,  that  he  might  send 
her  out  of  the  country.  The  consul  requested  his  mother-in- 
law  to  clear  some  part  of  the  house,  into  which  Hispala  might 
remove;  accordingly  an  apartment  was  assigned  her  in  the 
upper  part  of  it,  of  which  the  stairs,  opening  into  the  street, 
were  stopped  up,  and  the  entrance  made  from  the  inner  court. 
Thither  all  Fecenia's  effects  were  immediately  removed,  and 
her  domestics  sent  for.  iEbutius,  also,  was  ordered  to  re- 
move to  the  house  of  one  of  the  consul's  clients. 

When  both  the  informers  were  by  these  means  in  his  power, 
Postumius  represented  the  affair  to  the  senate,  laying  before 
them  the  whole  circumstance,  in  due  order;  the  information 
given  to  him  at  first,  and  the  discoveries  gained  by  his  in- 
quiries afterwards.  Great  consternation  seized  on  the  sen- 
ators; not  only  on  the  public  account,  lest  such  conspiracies 
and  nightly  meetings  might  be  productive  of  secret  treachery 
and  mischief,  but,  likewise,  on  account  of  their  own  particu- 
lar families,  lest  some  of  their  relations  might  be  involved  in 
this  infamous  affair.  The  senate  voted,  however,  that  thanks 
should  be  given  to  the  consul  because  he  had  investigated  the 
matter  with  singular  diligence,  and  without  exciting  any 
alarm.  They  then  commit  to  the  consuls  the  holding  an  in- 
quiry, out  of  the  common  course,  concerning  the  Bacchanals 


GR^CO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  277 

and  their  nocturnal  orgies.  They  ordered  them  to  take  care 
that  the  informers,  -^butius  and  Fecenia,  might  suffer  no 
Injury  on  that  account;  and  to  invite  other  informers  in  the 
matter,  by  offering  rewards.  They  ordered  that  the  officials 
in  those  rites,  whether  men  or  women,  should  be  sought  for, 
not  only  at  Rome,  but  also  throughout  all  the  market  towns 
and  places  of  assembly,  and  be  delivered  over  to  the  power 
of  the  consuls;  and  also  that  proclamation  should  be  made  in 
the  city  of  Rome,  and  published  through  all  Italy,  that 
"  no  persons  initiated  in  the  Bacchanalian  rites  should  pre- 
sume to  come  together  or  assemble  on  account  of  those  rites, 
or  to  perform  any  such  kind  of  worship;"  and  above  all, 
that  search  should  be  made  for  those  who  had  assembled  or 
conspired  for  personal  abuse,  or  for  any  other  flagitious  prac- 
tices. The  senate  passed  these  decrees.  The  consuls  directed 
the  curule  sediles  to  make  strict  inquiry  after  all  the  priests 
of  those  mysteries,  and  to  keep  such  as  they  could  apprehend 
in  custody  until  their  trial;  they  at  the  same  time  charged 
the  plebeian  Eediles  to  take  care  that  no  religious  ceremonies 
should  be  performed  in  private.  To  the  capital  triumvirs  the 
task  was  assigned  to  post  watches  in  proper  places  in  the 
city,  and  to  use  vigilance  in  preventing  any  meetings  by 
night.  In  order  likewise  to  guard  against  fires,  five  assist- 
ants were  joined  to  the  triumvirs,  so  that  each  might  have 
the  charge  of  the  buildings  In  his  own  separate  district,  on 
this  side  the  Tiber. 

After  despatching  these  officers  to  their  several  employ- 
ments, the  consuls  mounted  the  rostrum;  and,  having  sum- 
moned an  assembly  of  the  people,  one  of  the  consuls,  when 
he  had  finished  the  solemn  form  of  prayer  which  the  magis- 
trates are  accustomed  to  pronounce  before  they  address  the 
people,  proceeded  thus:  "  Romans,  to  no  former  assembly 
was  this  solemn  supplication  to  the  gods  more  suitable  or 
even  more  necessary :  as  it  serves  to  remind  you,  that  these 
are  the  deities  whom  your  forefathers  pointed  out  as  the 
objects  of  your  worship,  veneration  and  prayers:  and  not 
those  which  Infatuated  men's  minds  with  corrupt  and  foreign 
modes  of  religion,  and  drove  them,  as  If  goaded  by  the  furies, 
to  every  lust  and  every  vice.    I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  what  I 


278  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

should  conceal,  or  how  far  I  ought  to  speak  out;  for  I  dread 
lest,  if  I  leave  you  ignorant  of  any  particular,  I  should  give 
room  for  carelessness,  or  if  I  disclose  the  whole,  that  I 
should  too  much  awaken  your  fears.  Whatever  I  shall  say, 
be  assured  that  it  is  less  than  the  magnitude  and  atrociousness 
of  the  affair  would  justify:  exertions  will  be  used  by  us  that 
it  may  be  sufficient  to  set  us  properly  on  our  guard.  That 
the  Bacchanalian  rites  have  subsisted  for  some  time  past  in 
every  country  in  Italy,  and  are  at  present  performed  in  many 
parts  of  this  city  also,  I  am  sure  you  must  have  been  in- 
formed, not  only  by  report,  but  by  the  nightly  noises  and  the 
horrid  yells  that  resound  through  the  whole  city;  but  still 
you  are  ignorant  of  the  nature  of  that  business.  Part  of  you 
think  it  is  some  kind  of  worship  of  the  gods;  others,  some 
excusable  sport  and  amusement,  and  that  whatever  it  may 
be,  it  concerns  but  a  few.  As  regards  the  number  if  I  tell 
you  that  there  are  many  thousands,  that  you  would  be  imme- 
diately terrified  to  excess  is  a  necessary  consequence;  unless 
I  further  acquaint  you  who  and  what  sort  of  persons  they 
are.  First,  then,  a  great  part  of  them  are  women,  and  this 
was  the  source  of  the  evil;  the  rest  are  males,  but  nearly 
resembling  women;  actors  and  pathics  in  the  vilest  lewdness; 
night  revellers,  driven  frantic  by  wine,  noise  of  instruments, 
and  clamors.  The  conspiracy,  as  yet,  has  no  strength;  but 
it  has  abundant  means  of  acquiring  strength,  for  they  are 
becoming  more  numerous  every  day.  Your  ancestors  would 
not  allow  that  you  should  ever  assemble  casually  without 
some  good  reason;  that  is,  either  when  the  standard  was 
erected  on  the  Janiculum,  and  the  army  led  out  on  occasion 
of  elections;  or  when  the  tribunes  proclaimed  a  meeting  of 
the  commons,  or  some  of  the  magistrates  summoned  you  to 
it.  And  they  judged  it  necessary,  that  wherever  a  multi- 
tude was,  there  should  be  a  lawful  governor  of  that  mul- 
titude present.  Of  what  kind  do  you  suppose  are  the  meet- 
ings of  these  people?  In  the  first  place,  held  in  the  night, 
and  in  the  next,  composed  promiscuously  of  men  and  women. 
If  you  knew  at  what  ages  the  males  are  initiated,  you  would 
feel  not  only  pity,  but  also  shame  for  them.  Romans,  can 
you  think  youths  initiated,  under  such  oaths  as  theirs,  are 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  279 

fit  to  be  made  soldiers?  That  arms  should  be  intrusted  with 
wretches  brought  out  of  that  temple  of  obscenity?  Shall 
these,  contaminated  with  their  own  foul  debaucheries  and 
those  of  others,  be  champions  for  the  chastity  of  your  wives 
and  children? 

"  But  the  mischief  were  less,  If  they  were  only  effeminated 
by  their  practices;  or  that  the  disgrace  would  chiefly  affect 
themselves;  if  they  refrained  their  hands  from  outrage,  and 
their  thoughts  from  fraud.  But  never  was  there  in  the  state 
an  evil  of  so  great  magnitude,  or  one  that  extended  to  so 
many  persons  or  so  many  acts  of  wickedness.  Whatever 
deeds  of  vlllany  have,  during  late  years  been  committed 
through  lust;  whatever  through  fraud;  whatever  through 
violence;  they  have  all,  be  assured,  proceeded  from  that 
association  alone.  They  have  not  yet  perpetrated  all  the 
crimes  for  which  they  combine.  The  Impious  assembly  at 
present  confines  Itself  to  outrages  on  private  citizens;  be- 
cause It  has  not  yet  acquired  force  sufficient  to  crush  the 
commonwealth:  but  the  evil  increases  and  spreads  daily;  It 
Is  already  too  great  for  the  private  ranks  of  life  to  contain 
it,  and  aims  Its  views  at  the  body  of  the  state.  Unless  you 
take  timely  precautions,  Romans,  their  nightly  assembly  may 
become  as  large  as  this,  held  in  open  day  and  legally  sum- 
moned by  a  consul.  Now  they  one  by  one  dread  you  collected 
together  in  the  assembly;  presently,  when  you  shall  have 
separated  and  retired  to  your  several  dwellings.  In  town  and 
country,  they  will  again  come  together,  and  will  hold  a  con- 
sultation on  the  means  of  their  own  safety,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  of  your  destruction.  Thus  united,  they  will  cause  terror 
to  every  one  of  you.  Each  of  you  therefore,  ought  to  pray 
that  his  kindred  may  have  behaved  with  wisdom  and  pru- 
dence; and  if  lust,  if  madness,  has  dragged  any  of  them  into 
that  abyss,  to  consider  such  a  person  as  the  relation  of  those 
with  whom  he  has  conspired  for  every  disgraceful  and  reck- 
less act,  and  not  as  one  of  your  own.  I  am  not  secure,  lest 
some  even  of  yourselves  may  have  erred  through  mistake; 
for  nothing  Is  more  deceptive  In  appearance  than  false  re- 
ligion. When  the  authority  of  the  gods  is  held  out  as  a 
pretext  to  cover  vice,  fear  enters  our  minds,  lest  In  punish- 


28o  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

ing  the  crimes  of  men,  we  may  violate  some  divine  right 
connected  therewith.  Numberless  decisions  of  the  pontiffs, 
decrees  of  the  senate,  and  even  answers  of  the  aruspices, 
free  you  from  religious  scruples  of  this  character.  How 
often  in  the  ages  of  our  fathers  was  it  given  in  charge  to 
the  magistrates,  to  prohibit  the  performances  of  any  foreign 
religious  rites;  to  banish  strolling  sacrificers  and  soothsayers 
from  the  Forum,  the  circus  and  the  city;  to  search  for  and 
burn  books  of  divination;  and  to  abolish  every  mode  of  sac- 
rificing that  was  not  conformable  to  the  Roman  practice ! 
For  they,  completely  versed  in  every  divine  and  human  law, 
maintained  that  nothing  tended  so  strongly  to  the  subversion 
of  religion  as  sacrifice,  when  we  offered  it  not  after  the  insti- 
tutions of  our  forefathers,  but  after  foreign  customs.  Thus 
much  I  thought  necessary  to  mention  to  you  beforehand,  that 
no  vain  scruple  might  disturb  your  minds  when  you  should 
see  us  demolishing  the  places  resorted  to  by  the  Bacchanal- 
ians, and  dispersing  their  impious  assemblies.  We  shall  do 
all  these  things  with  the  favor  and  approbation  of  the  gods; 
who,  because  they  were  indignant  that  their  divinity  was  dis- 
honored by  those  people's  lust  and  crimes,  have  drawn  forth 
their  proceedings  from  hidden  darkness  into  the  open  light; 
and  who  have  directed  them  to  be  exposed,  not  that  they 
may  escape  with  impunity,  but  in  order  that  they  may  be 
punished  and  suppressed.  The  senate  have  committed  to  me 
and  my  colleague,  an  inquisition  extraordinary  concerning 
that  affair.  What  is  requisite  to  be  done  by  ourselves,  in 
person,  we  will  do  with  energy.  The  charge  of  posting 
watches  through  the  city,  during  the  night,  we  have  com- 
mitted to  the  inferior  magistrates;  and,  for  your  parts,  it  is 
incumbent  on  you  to  execute  vigorously  whatever  duties  are 
assigned  you,  and  in  the  several  places  where  each  will 
be  placed,  to  perform  whatever  orders  you  shall  receive,  and 
to  use  your  best  endeavors  that  no  danger  or  tumult  may  arise 
from  the  treachery  of  the  party  involved  in  the  guilt." 

I  hey  then  ordered  the  decrees  of  the  senate  to  be  read, 
and  published  a  reward  for  any  discoverer  who  should  bring 
any  of  the  guilty  before  them,  or  give  information  against 
any  of  the  absent,  adding,  that  "  if  any  person  accused  should 


GRiECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  281 

fly,  they  would  limit  a  certain  day  upon  which,  if  he  did  not 
answer  when  summoned,  he  would  be  condemned  in  his  ab- 
sence; and  if  anyone  should  be  charged  who  was  out  of  Italy, 
they  would  not  allow  him  any  longer  time,  if  he  should  wish 
to  come  and  make  his  defence."  They  then  issued  an  edict, 
that  "  no  person  whatever  should  presume  to  buy  or  sell  any- 
thing for  the  purpose  of  leaving  the  country;  or  to  receive 
or  conceal,  or  by  any  means  aid  the  fugitives."  On  the 
assembly  being  dismissed,  great  terror  spread  throughout  the 
city;  nor  was  it  confined  merely  within  the  walls,  or  to 
the  Roman  territory,  for  everywhere  throughout  the  whole 
of  Italy  alarm  began  to  be  felt — when  the  letters  from  the 
guest-friends  were  received — concerning  the  decree  of  the 
senate,  and  what  passed  in  the  assembly  and  the  edict  of  the 
consuls.  During  the  night,  which  succeeded  the  day  in  which 
the  affair  was  made  public,  great  numbers  attempting  to  fly, 
were  seized  and  brought  back  by  the  triumvirs,  who  had 
posted  guards  at  all  the  gates;  and  Informations  were  lodged 
against  many,  some  of  whom,  both  men  and  women,  put 
themselves  to  death.  Above  seven  thousand  men  and  women 
are  said  to  have  taken  the  oath  of  the  association.  But  it 
appeared  that  the  heads  of  the  conspiracy  were  the  two 
Catlnii,  Marcus  and  Calus,  Roman  plebeians;  Lucius  Opi- 
turnius,  a  Falisclan;  and  MInlus  Cerrlnius,  a  Campanian : 
that  from  these  proceeded  all  their  criminal  practices,  and 
that  these  were  the  chief  priests  and  founders  of  the  sect. 
Care  was  taken  that  they  should  be  apprehended  as  soon 
as  possible.  They  were  brought  before  the  consuls,  and  con- 
fessing their  guilt,  caused  no  delay  to  the  ends  of  justice. 

But  so  great  were  the  numbers  that  fled  from  the  city,  that 
because  the  lawsuits  and  property  of  many  persons  were  go- 
ing to  ruin,  the  prsetors,  Titlus  MsBnlus  and  Marcus  Licinius 
were  obliged,  under  the  direction  of  the  senate,  to  adjourn 
their  courts  for  thirty  days  until  the  inquiries  should  be  fin- 
ished by  the  consuls.  The  same  deserted  state  of  the  law 
courts,  since  the  persons  against  whom  charges  were  brought 
did  not  appear  to  answer,  nor  could  be  found  in  Rome,  neces- 
sitated the  consuls  to  make  a  circuit  of  the  country  towns, 
and  there  to  make  their  inquisitions   and  hold  the  trials. 


282  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

Those  who,  as  It  appeared,  had  been  only  initiated,  and  had 
made  after  the  priest,  and  in  the  most  solemn  form,  the  pre- 
scribed imprecations,  in  which  the  accursed  conspiracy  for 
the  perpetration  of  every  crime  and  lust  was  contained,  but 
who  had  not  themselves  committed,  or  compelled  others  to 
commit,  any  of  those  acts  to  which  they  were  bound  by  the 
oath — all  such  they  left  in  prison.  But  those  who  had  for- 
cibly committed  personal  defilements  or  murders,  or  were 
stained  with  the  guilt  of  false  evidence,  counterfeit  seals, 
forged  wills,  or  other  frauds,  all  these  they  punished  with 
death.  A  greater  number  were  executed  than  thrown  into 
prison;  indeed  the  multitude  of  men  and  women  who  suffered 
in  both  ways,  was  very  considerable.  The  consuls  delivered 
the  women  who  were  condemned  to  their  relations,  or  to 
those  under  whose  guardianship  they  were,  that  they  might 
inflict  the  punishment  in  private;  but  if  there  did  not  appear 
any  proper  person  of  the  kind  to  execute  the  sentence,  the 
punishment  was  inflicted  in  public.  A  charge  was  then  given 
to  demolish  all  the  places  where  the  Bacchanalians  had  held 
their  meetings;  first,  in  Rome,  and  then  throughout  all  Italy; 
excepting  those  wherein  should  be  found  some  ancient  altar, 
or  consecrated  statue.  With  regard  to  the  future,  the  senate 
passed  a  decree,  "  that  no  Bacchanalian  rites  should  be  cele- 
brated in  Rome  or  in  Italy:"  and  ordering  that,  "In  case 
any  person  should  believe  some  such  kind  of  worship  in- 
cumbent upon  him,  and  necessary;  and  that  he  could  not, 
without  offence  to  religion,  and  incurring  guilt,  omit  it,  he 
should  represent  this  to  the  city  praetor,  and  the  praetor  should 
lay  the  business  before  the  senate.  If  permission  were  granted 
by  the  senate,  when  not  less  than  one  hundred  members  were 
present,  then  he  might  perform  those  rites,  provided  that  no 
more  than  five  persons  should  be  present  at  the  sacrifice,  and 
that  they  should  have  no  common  stock  of  money,  nor  any 
president  of  the  ceremonies,  nor  priest." 

Another  decree  connected  with  this  was  then  made,  on  a 
motion  of  the  consul,  Quintus  Marcius,  that  "  the  business 
respecting  the  persons  who  had  served  the  consuls  as  inform- 
ers should  be  proposed  to  the  senate  In  its  original  form, 
when  Spurlus  Postumius  should  have  finished  his  inquiries, 


GR.ECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  283 

and  returned  to  Rome."  They  voted  that  Minus  Cerrinius, 
the  Campanian,  should  be  sent  to  Ardea,  to  be  kept  in  cus- 
tody there ;  and  that  a  caution  should  be  given  to  the  rnagis- 
trates  of  that  city,  to  guard  him  with  more  than  ordinary 
care,  so  as  to  prevent  not  only  his  escaping,  but  his  having 
an  opportunity  of  committing  suicide. 

Spurius  Postumius  some  time  after  came  to  Rome  and  on 
his  proposing  the  question,  concerning  the  reward  to  be  given 
to  Publius  ^butlus  and  Hispala  Fecenia,  because  the  Bac- 
chanalian ceremonies  were  discovered  by  their  exertions,  the 
senate  passed  a  vote,  that  "  the  city  quaestors  should  give 
to  each  of  them,  out  of  the  public  treasury,  one  hundred 
thousand  asses;  and  that  the  consuls  should  desire  the  ple- 
beian tribunes  to  propose  to  the  commons  as  soon  as  con- 
venient, that  the  campaigns  of  Publius  iEbutius  should  be 
considered  as  served,  that  he  should  not  become  a  soldier 
against  his  wishes,  nor  should  any  censor  assign  him  a  horse 
at  the  public  charge."  They  voted  also,  that  "  Hispala 
Fecenia  should  enjoy  the  privileges  of  alienating  her  prop- 
erty by  gift  or  deed;  of  marrying  out  of  her  rank,  and  of 
choosing  a  guardian,  as  If  a  husband  had  conferred  them 
by  will;  that  she  should  be  at  liberty  to  wed  a  man  of  hon- 
orable birth,  and  that  there  should  be  no  disgrace  or  Igno- 
miny to  him  who  should  marry  her;  and  that  the  consuls 
and  praetors  then  In  office,  and  their  successors,  should  take 
care  that  no  injury  should  be  offered  to  that  woman,  and 
that  she  might  live  in  safety.  That  the  senate  wishes,  and 
thought  proper,  that  all  these  things  should  be  so  ordered." 
— All  these  particulars  were  proposed  to  the  commons,  and 
executed,  according  to  the  vote  of  the  senate;  and  full  per- 
mission was  given  to  the  consuls  to  determine  respecting  the 
impunity  and  rewards  of  the  other  informers.^ 

The  bacchanalian  orgies  were  first  suppressed  nearly 
two  hundred  years  before  Christ.  The  above  extract 
from  Livy  reminds  us  that  at  that  time  the  Romans 
were  still  strong  and  virtuous,  and  that  a  proposal  of 

^  Livy,  b.  xxxix.  Chaps.  VI I. -XX. 


284  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

their  Consul  to  eradicate  a  vicious  evil  that  threatened 
the  existence  of  both  domestic  life  and  the  State,  met 
with  warm  approval  and  hearty  support  from  both  the 
Senate  and  the  people.  But  the  insidious  infection 
was  never  completely  eradicated ;  and  the  work  of  the 
*'  Greek  from  Etruria  "  bore  bitter  fruit  in  the  centu- 
ries that  followed.  And  when  we  consider  that  not 
only  bacchanalian  orgies,  but  Greek  literature,  paint- 
ing, sculpture,  tragedy  and  comedy,  were  the  chief 
causes  of  the  pollution  of  Roman  morals  and  the  de- 
struction of  the  Roman  State,  should  we  be  surprised 
that  Juvenal,  in  an  outburst  of  patriotic  wrath,  should 
have  declaimed  against  "  a  Grecian  capital  in  Italy";  ^ 
and  that  he  should  have  hurled  withering  scorn  at 

The  flattering,  cringing,  treacherous,  artful  race, 
Of  fluent  tongue  and  never-blushing  face, 
A  Protean  tribe,  one  knows  not  what  to  call, 
That  shifts  to  every  form,  and  shines  in  all. 

And,  when  we  consider  the  state  of  the  Roman 
world  at  the  time  of  Christ,  should  we  be  surprised 
that  St.  Paul  should  have  described  Romans  as  "  Being 
filled  with  all  unrighteousness,  fornication,  wicked- 
ness, covetousness,  maliciousness;  full  of  envy,  murder, 
debate,  deceit,  malignity;  whisperers,  backbiters, 
haters  of  God,  despiteful,  proud,  boasters,  inventors 
of  evil  things,  disobedient  to  parents,  without  under- 
standing, covenant-breakers,  without  natural  affection, 
implacable,  unmerciful"?^ 

^  " non  possum  ferre,  Quirites,  Graecam  urbem."  (Sat.  III.) 

^  Romans  i,  29-31. 


GR/ECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  285 

Suffice  it  to  say,  in  closing  the  chapter  on  GraBCO- 
Roman  paganism,  that,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Chris- 
tian era,  the  Roman  empire  had  reached  the  limit  of 
physical  expansion.  Roman  military  glory  had  culmi- 
nated in  the  sublime  achievements  of  Pompey  and  of 
Caesar.  Mountains,  seas,  and  deserts,  beyond  which 
all  was  barbarous  and  desolate,  were  the  natural  bar- 
riers of  Roman  dominion.  Roman  arms  could  go  no 
farther;  and  Roman  ambition  could  be  no  longer 
gratified  by  conquest.  The  Roman  religion  had  fallen 
into  decay  and  contempt;  and  the  Roman  conscience 
was  paralyzed  and  benumbed.  Disgusted  with  this 
world,  the  average  Roman  did  not  believe  in  any  other, 
and  was  utterly  without  hope  of  future  happiness.  A 
gloomy  despondency  filled  the  hearts  of  men  and 
drove  them  into  black  despair.  When  approaching 
death,  they  wore  no  look  of  triumph,  expressed  no 
belief  in  immortality,  but  simply  requested  of  those 
whom  they  were  leaving  behind,  to  scatter  flowers  on 
their  graves,  or  to  bewail  their  early  end.  An  epigram 
of  the  Anthology  is  this:  "  Let  us  drink  and  be  merry; 
for  we  shall  have  no  more  of  kissing  and  dancing  in 
the  kingdom  of  Proserpine:  soon  shall  we  fall  asleep 
to  wake  no  more."  The  same  sentiments  are  expressed 
in  epitaphs  on  Roman  sepulchral  monuments  of  the 
period.  One  of  them  reads  thus :  '^  What  I  have  eaten 
and  drunk,  that  I  take  with  me;  what  I  have  left  be- 
hind me,  that  have  I  forfeited."  This  is  the  language 
of  another:  ''Reader,  enjoy  thy  life;  for  after  death 
there  is  neither  laughter  nor  play,  nor  any  kind  of 
enjoyment."     Still   another:  "  Friend,   I   advise,  mix 


286  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

thee  a  goblet  of  wine,  and  drink,  crowning  thy  head 
with  flowers.  Earth  and  fire  consume  all  that  remains 
after  death."  And,  finally,  one  of  them  assures  us  that 
Greek  mythology  is  false:  "  Pilgrim,  stay  thee,  listen 
and  learn.  In  Hades  there  is  no  ferryboat,  nor  ferry- 
man Charon;  no  i^acus  or  Cerberus; — once  dead,  and 
we  are  all  alike."  ^ 

Matthew  Arnold  has  very  graphically  described  the 
disgusting,  sickening,  overwhelming  despair  of  the 
Roman  people  at  the  birth  of  Christ. 

Ah !  carry  back  thy  ken, 

What,  some  two  thousand  years !     Survey 
The  world  as  it  was  then. 

Like  ours  it  looked,  in  outward  air. 

Its  head  was  clear  and  true; 
Sumptuous  its  clothing,  rich  its  fare; 

No  pause  its  action  knew. 

Stout  was  its  arm,  each  thew  and  bone 

Seem'd  puissant  and  alive — 
But  ah !  its  heart,  its  heart  was  stone 

And  so  it  could  not  thrive. 

On  that  hard  pagan  world  disgust 

And  secret  loathing  fell ; 
Deep  weariness  and  sated  lust 

Made  human  life  a  hell. 

In  his  goodly  hall  with  haggard  eyes, 

The  Roman  noble  lay; 
He  drove  abroad  in  furious  guise 

Along  the  Appian  Way. 

1  Dollinger,  vol.  ii.  pp.  155,  156. 


GRyECO-ROMAN    PAGANISM  287 

He  made  a  feast,  drank  fierce  and  fast, 
And  crowned  his  hair  with  flowers; 

No  easier,  nor  no  quicker  passed 
The  impracticable  hours.^ 

But  the  "  darkest  hour  is  just  before  the  dawn,"  and 
"  the  fulness  of  the  time  was  come."  Already  the  first 
faint  glimmers  of  the  breaking  of  a  grander  and  better 
day  were  perceptible  to  the  senses  of  the  noblest  and 
finest  of  Roman  intellects.  Already  Cicero  had  pic- 
tured a  glorious  millennium  that  would  follow  if  per- 
fect virtue  should  ever  enter  into  the  flesh  and  come  to 
dwell  among  men.-  Already  Virgil,  deriving  inspira- 
tion from  the  Erythraean  Sibylline  prophecies,  had 
sung  of  the  advent  of  a  heaven-born  child,  whose  com- 
ing would  restore  the  Golden  Age,  and  establish  en- 
during peace  and  happiness  on  the  earth.^  Already  a 
debauched,  degraded  and  degenerate  world  was  crying 
in  the  anguish  of  its  soul :  ^'  I  know  that  my  Redeemer 
liveth!  "  And,  even  before  the  Baptist  began  to  preach 
in  the  wilderness,  the  ways  had  been  made  straight  for 
the  coming  of  the  Nazarene. 

1  Matthew  Arnold's  Poems — "Obermann  Once  More," 

2  Cicero,  " De  Pin."  v.  pp.  24,  6g. 
2  Eclogue  IV. 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX    I 


CHARACTERS  OF  THE  SANHEDRISTS  WHO  TRIED  JESUS 


HE  following  short  biographical 
sketches  of  about  forty  of  the 
members  of  the  Sanhedrin  who 
tried  Jesus  are  from  a  work  en- 
titled "  Valeur  de  I'assemblee  qui 
pronon^'a  la  peine  de  mort  contre 
Jesus  Christ  "  —  Lemann.  The 
English  translation,  under  the 
title  "  Jesus  Before  the  Sanhe- 
drin," is  by  Julius  Magath,  Oxford,  Georgia. 

Professor  Magath's  translation  is  used  in  this  work 
by  special  permission. — The  AUTHOR. 


The  Moral  Characters  of  the  Personages  who 
Sat  at  the  Trial  of  Christ 

The  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  that  judged  Christ 
were  seventy-one  in  number,  and  were  divided  into 
three  chambers;  but  we  must  know  the  names,  acts, 
and  moral  characters  of  these  judges.  That  such  a 
knowledge  would  throw  a  great  light  on  this  cele- 
brated trial  can  be  easily  understood.  The  characters 
of  Caiaphas,  Ananos,  and  Pilate  are  already  well 
known  to  us.  These  stand  out  as  the  three  leading  fig- 
ures in  the  drama  of  the  Passion.     But  others  have 

X91 


igi  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

appeared  in  it;  would  it  not  be  possible  to  produce 
them  also  before  history?  This  task,  we  believe,  has 
never  yet  been  undertaken.  It  was  thought  that 
documents  were  wanting.  But  this  is  an  error;  such 
documents  exist.  We  have  consulted  them;  and  in 
this  century  of  historical  study  and  research  we  shall 
draw  forth  from  the  places  where  they  have  been 
hidden  for  centuries,  the  majority  of  the  judges  of 
Christ. 

Three  kinds  of  documents  have,  in  a  particular  man- 
ner, enabled  us  to  discover  the  characters  of  these  men: 
the  books  of  the  Evangelists,  the  valuable  writings  of 
Josephus  the  historian,  and  the  hitherto  unexplored 
pages  of  the  Talmud.  We  shall  bring  to  light  forty 
of  the  judges,  so  that  more  than  half  of  the  Sanhedrin 
will  appear  before  us;  and  this  large  majority  will  be 
sufficient  to  enable  us  to  form  an  opinion  of  the  moral 
tone  of  the  whole  assembly. 

To  proceed  with  due  order,  we  will  begin  with  the 
most  important  chamber — viz.,  the  chamber  of  the 
priests. 

I.  The  Chamber  of  the  Priests 

We  use  the  expression  "  chamber  of  the  priests.''''  In 
the  Gospel  narrative,  however,  this  division  of  the  San- 
hedrin bears  a  more  imposing  title.  Matthew,  Mark, 
and  the  other  Evangelists,  designate  it  by  the  following 
names:  the  council  of  the  high  priests^  and  the  council 
of  the  princes  of  the  priests} 

^  Matt.  ii.  4;  xxi.  15;  xxvi.  3,  47,  59;  Mark  xi.  18;  xv.  ll;  Luke  xix. 
47;  XX.  i;  John  xi.  47;  xii.  20. 


CHARACTERS    OF   THE    SANHEDRISTS     293 

But  we  may  ask,  Why  is  this  pompous  name  given 
to  this  chamber  by  the  Evangelists?  Is  this  not  an  error 
on  their  part?  An  assembly  of  priests  seems  natural, 
but  how  can  there  be  an  assembly  of  high  priests,  since 
according  to  the  Mosaic  institution  there  could  be  only 
one  high  priest,  whose  office  was  tenable  for  life.  There 
is,  however,  neither  an  error  nor  an  undue  amplifica- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  Gospel  narrators;  and  we  may 
also  add  here  that  both  Talmuds  positively  speak  of 
an  assembly  of  high  priests.^  But  how,  then,  can  we 
account  for  the  presence  of  several  high  priests  at  the 
same  time  in  the  Sanhedrin?  Here  is  the  explanation, 
to  the  shame  of  the  Jewish  assembly: 

For  nearly  a  century  a  detestable  abuse  prevailed, 
which  consisted  in  the  arbitrary  nomination  and  depo- 
sition of  the  high  priest.  The  high  priesthood,  which 
for  fifteen  centuries  had  been  preserved  in  the  same 
family,  being  hereditary  according  to  the  divine  com- 
mand,^ had  at  the  time  oi  Christ's  advent  become  an 
object  of  commercial  speculation.  Herod  commenced 
these  arbitrary  changes,^  and  after  Judea  became  one 
of  the  Roman  conquests  the  election  of  the  high  priest 
took  place  almost  every  year  at  Jerusalem,  the  procu- 
rators appointing  and  deposing  them  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  the  praetorians  later  on  made  and  unmade 
emperors.^  The  Talmud  speaks  sorrowfully  of  this 
venality  and  the  yearly  changes  of  the  high  priest. 

^  Derembourg,  "Essai  sur  I'histoire  et  la  geographic  de  la  Palestine,"  p. 
231,  note  I. 

2  Josephus,  "Ant.,"  Book  XX.  Chap.  X.  i;  XV.  III.  I. 

3  Josephus,  "Ant.,"  Book  XV.  Chap.  III.  i. 

4  Josephus,  "Ant.,"  Book  XVIII.  Chap.  II.  3;  Book  XX.  Chap.  IX.  i,  4. 


294  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

This  sacred  office  was  given  to  the  one  that  offered 
the  most  money  for  it,  and  mothers  were  particularly 
anxious  that  their  sons  should  be  nominated  to  this 
dignity/ 

The  expression,  "  the  council  of  the  high  priests,^^ 
used  by  the  Evangelists  to  designate  this  section  of  the 
Sanhedrin,  is  therefore  rigorously  correct;  for  at  the 
time  of  the  trial  of  Christ  there  were  about  twelve  ex- 
high  priests,  who  still  retained  the  honorable  title  of 
their  charge,  and  were,  by  the  right  of  that  title,  mem- 
bers of  the  high  tribunal.  Several  ordinary  priests 
were  also  included  in  this  chamber,  but  they  were  in 
most  cases  related  to  the  high  priests;  for  in  the  midst 
of  the  intrigues  by  which  the  sovereign  pontificate  was 
surrounded  in  those  days,  it  was  customary  for  the  more 
influential  of  the  chief  priests  to  bring  in  their  sons 
and  allies  as  members  of  their  chamber.  The  spirit 
of  caste  was  very  powerful,  and  as  M.  Derembourg, 
a  modern  Jewish  savant,  has  remarked :  "ydf  feu'  priest- 
ly, aristocratic,  powerful,  and  vain  families,  who  cared 
for  neither  the  dignity  nor  the  interests  of  the  altar, 
quarreled  with  each  other  respecting  appointments,  in- 
fluence, and  wealth!'''  ^ 

To  sum  up,  we  have,  then,  in  this  first  chamber 
a  double  element — high  priests  and  ordinary  priests. 
We  shall  now  make  them  known  by  their  names  and 
characters,  and  indicate  the  sources  whence  the  in- 
formation has  been  obtained. 

^  See  "Talmud,"  "  Yoma,"  or  "the  Day  of  Atonement,"  fol.  35,  recto; 
also  Derembourg,  work  above  quoted,  p.  230,  note  2. 

^  "Essai  sur  I'histoire  et  la  geographie  de  la  Palestine,"  p.  232. 


CHARACTERS   OF   THE    SANHEDRISTS     295 

Caiaphas,  high  priest  then  in  office.  He  was  the 
son-in-law  of  Ananos,  and  exercised  his  office  for  eleven 
years — during  the  whole  term  of  Pilate's  administra- 
tion (25-36  A.D.).  It  is  he  who  presided  over  the 
Sanhedrin  during  this  trial,  and  the  history  of  the 
Passion  as  given  by  the  Evangelists  is  sufficient  to 
malie  him  known  to  us.  (See  Matt.  xxvi.  3;  Luke 
iii.  2,  etc.;  Jos.,  "Ant.,"  B.  XVHI.  C.  H.  2.) 

Ananos  held  the  office  of  high  priest  for  seven  years 
under  Coponius,  Ambivus,  and  Rufus  (7-1 1  A.D.). 
This  personage  was  the  father-in-law  of  Caiaphas,  and 
although  out  of  office  was  nevertheless  consulted  on 
matters  of  importance.  It  may  be  said,  indeed,  that 
in  the  midst  of  the  instability  of  the  sacerdotal  office 
he  alone  preserved  in  reality  its  authority.  For  fifty 
years  this  high  office  remained  without  interruption 
in  his  family.  Five  of  his  sons  successively  assumed 
its  dignity.  This  family  was  even  known  as  the  "  sac- 
erdotal family,"  as  if  this  office  had  become  hereditary 
in  it.  Ananos  had  charge  also  of  the  more  important 
duties  of  the  Temple,  and  Josephus  says  that  he  was 
considered  the  most  fortunate  man  of  his  time.  He 
adds,  however,  that  the  spirit  of  this  family  was 
haughty,  audacious,  and  cruel.  (Luke  iii.  2;  John 
xviii.  13,  24;  Acts  iv.  6;  Jos.,  "  Ant.,"  B.  XV.  C.  III.  i ; 
XX.  IX.  I,  3;  "Jewish  Wars,"  B.  IV.  V.  2,  6,  7.) 

Eleazar  was  high  priest  during  one  year,  under 
Valerius  Grattus  (23-24  A.D.).  He  was  the  eldest  son 
of  Ananos.     (Jos.,  "  Ant.,"  B.  XVIII.  II.  2.) 

Jonathan,  son  of  Ananos,  simple  priest  at  that  time, 
but  afterwards  made  high  priest  for  one  year  in  the 


296  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

place  of  Caiaphas  when  the  latter  was  deposed,  after 
the  disgrace  of  Pilate,  by  Vitellius,  Governor-general 
of  Syria  (37  A.D.).     (Jos.,  "  Ant.,"  B.  XVIII.  IV.  3.) 

Theophilus,  son  of  Ananos,  simple  priest  at  that 
time,  but  afterwards  made  high  priest  in  the  place  of 
his  brother  Jonathan,  who  was  deposed  by  Vitellius. 
Theophilus  was  in  office  five  years  (38-42  A.D.) .  (Jos., 
"Ant,"  B.  XIX.  VI.  2;  Munk,  "Hist,  de  la  Pales- 
tine," p.  568.) 

Matthias,  son  of  Ananos.  Simple  priest;  after- 
wards high  priest  for  two  years  (42-44  A.D.).  He  suc- 
ceeded Simon  Cantharus,  who  was  deposed  by  King 
Herod  Agrippa.     (Jos.,  "  Ant,"  XIX.  VI.  4.) 

Ananus,  son  of  Ananos.  Simple  priest  at  the  time; 
afterwards  made  high  priest  by  Herod  Agrippa  after 
the  death  of  the  Roman  governor,  Portius  Festus  (63 
A.D.).  Being  a  Sadducee  of  extravagant  zeal,  he  was 
deposed  at  the  end  of  three  months  by  Albanus,  suc- 
cessor of  Portius  Festus,  for  having  illegally  condemned 
the  apostle  James  to  be  stoned.  (Acts  xxiii.  2,  xxiv.  i ; 
Jos.,  "Ant,"  B.  XX.  IX.  i.) 

JOAZAR,  high  priest  for  six  years  during  the  latter 
days  of  Herod  the  Great  and  the  first  years  of  Arche- 
laus  (4  B.C.-2  A.D.) .  He  was  the  son  of  Simon  Boethus, 
who  owed  his  dignity  and  fortune  to  the  following 
dishonorable  circumstance,  as  related  by  Josephus  the 
historian:  "There  was  one  Simon,  a  citizen  of  Jeru- 
salem, the  son  of  Boethus,  a  citizen  of  Alexandria  and 
a  priest  of  great  note  there.  This  man  had  a  daughter, 
vyho  was  esteemed  the  most  beautiful  woman  of  that 
time.     And  when  the  people  of  Jerusalem  began  to 


CHARACTERS    OF   THE    SANHEDRISTS     297 

speak  much  in  her  commendation,  it  happened  that 
Herod  was  much  affected  by  what  was  said  of  her; 
and  when  he  saw  the  damsel  he  was  smitten  with  her 
beauty.  Yet  did  he  entirely  reject  the  thought  of  using 
his  authority  to  abuse  her  ...  so  he  thought  it  best 
to  take  the  damsel  to  wife.  And  while  Simon  was  of 
a  dignity  too  inferior  to  be  allied  to  him,  but  still  too 
considerable  to  be  despised,  he  governed  his  inclina- 
tions after  the  most  prudent  manner  by  augmenting 
the  dignity  of  the  family  and  making  them  more  hon- 
orable. Accordingly  he  forthwith  deprived  Jesus,  the 
son  of  Phabet,  of  the  high  priesthood,  and  conferred 
that  dignity  on  Simon."  Such,  according  to  Josephus, 
is  the  origin — not  at  all  of  a  supernatural  nature — 
of  the  call  to  the  high  priesthood  of  Simon  Boethus 
and  his  whole  family.  Simon,  at  the  time  of  this  trial, 
was  already  dead;  but  Joazar  figured  in  it  with  two 
of  his  brothers,  one  of  whom  was,  like  himself,  an 
ex-high  priest.  (Jos.,  "Ant.,"  B.  XV.  IX.  3;  XVII. 
VI.  4;XVnL  I.  i;XIX.  VI.  2.) 

Eleazar,  second  son  of  Simon  Boethus.  He  suc- 
ceeded his  brother  Joazar  when  the  latter  was  deprived 
of  that  function  by  King  Archelaus  (2  A.D.).  Eleazar 
was  high  priest  for  a  short  time  only,  the  same  king 
deposing  him  three  months  after  his  installation.  (Jos., 
"Ant,"  B.  XVII.  XIII.  i;  XIX.  VI.  2.) 

Simon  CanTHARUS,  third  son  of  Simon  Boethus. 
Simple  priest  at  the  time;  was  afterwards  made  high 
priest  by  King  Herod  Agrippa  (42  A.D.),  who,  how- 
ever, deposed  him  after  a  few  months.  (Jos.,  "Ant.," 
B.  XIX.  VI.  2,  4.) 


298  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Jesus  ben  Sie  succeeded  Eleazar  to  the  high  priest- 
hood, and  held  the  office  for  five  or  six  years  ( 1-6  A.D.) 
under  the  reign  of  Archelaus.  (Jos.,  "  Ant.,"  XVII. 
XIII.  I.) 

ISMAEL  ben  Phabi.  High  priest  for  nine  years  un- 
der procurator  Valerius  Grattus,  predecessor  of  Pon- 
tius Pilate.  He  was  considered,  according  to  the  rab- 
bins, the  handsomest  man  of  his  time.  The  effeminate 
love  of  luxury  of  this  chief  priest  was  carried  to  such 
an  extent  that  his  mother,  having  made  him  a  tunic 
of  great  price,  he  deigned  to  wear  it  once,  and  then 
consigned  it  to  the  public  wardrobe,  as  a  grand  lady 
might  dispose  of  a  robe  which  no  longer  pleased  her 
caprices.  ("  Talmud,"  "  Pesachim,"  or  "  of  the  Pass- 
over," fol.  57,  verso;  "  Yoma,"  or  "  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment," fol.  9,  verso;  3^,  recto;  Jos.,  "Ant,"  XVIII. 
II.  2;  XX.  VIII.  II ;  Bartolocci,  "  Grand  Bibliotheque 
Rabbinique,"  T.  III.  p.  297;  Munk,  "  Palestine,"  pp. 

563,  575-) 

Simon  hen  Camithus,  high  priest  during  one  year 

under  procurator  Valerius  Grattus  (24-25  A.D.).  This 
personage  was  celebrated  for  the  enormous  size  of  his 
hand,  and  the  Talmud  relates  of  him  the  following 
incident:  On  the  eve  of  the  day  of  atonement  it  hap- 
pened, in  the  course  of  a  conversation  which  he  had 
with  Arathus,  King  of  Arabia — whose  daughter  Herod 
Antipas  had  just  married — that  some  saliva,  coming 
out  of  the  mouth  of  the  king,  fell  on  the  robe  of 
Simon.  As  soon  as  the  king  left  him,  he  hastened  to 
divest  himself  of  it,  considering  it  desecrated  by  the 
circumstance,  and  hence  unworthy  to  be  worn  during 


CHARACTERS    OF   THE    SANHEDRISTS     299 

the  services  of  the  following  day.  What  a  remarkable 
instance  of  Pharisaical  purity  and  charity!  ("Tal- 
mud," "  Yoma,"  or  "  the  Day  of  Atonement,"  fol.  47, 
verso;  Jos.,  "  Ant.,"  XVHI.  H.  2;  Derembourg,  "  Es- 
sai  sur  I'histoire,"  p.  197,  n.  2.) 

John,  simple  priest.  He  is  made  known  to  us 
through  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  "  And  Annas  the 
high  priest,  and  Caiaphas,  and  John,  and  Alexander, 
and  as  many  as  were  of  the  kindred  of  the  high  priest, 
were  gathered  together  in  Jerusalem."    (Acts  iv.  6.) 

Alexander,  simple  priest;  also  mentioned  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  the  passage  above  quoted.  Jo- 
sephus  also  makes  mention  of  him,  and  says  that  he 
afterwards  became  an  Alabarch — that  is  to  say,  first 
magistrate  of  the  Jews  in  Alexandria.  That  he  was 
very  rich  is  to  be  learned  from  the  fact  that  King 
Herod  Agrippa  asked  and  obtained  from  him  the  loan 
of  two  hundred  thousand  pieces  of  silver.  (Acts  iv.  6; 
Jos.,  "  Ant.,"  XVHI.  VI.  3;  XX.  V.  2;  Petri  Wesse- 
lingii,  "  Diatribe  de  Judaeorum  Archontibus,"  Tra- 
jecti  ad  Rhenum,  pp.  69-71.) 

Ananias  ben  Nebedeus,  simple  priest  at  that  time; 
was  elected  to  the  high  priesthood  under  procurators 
Ventideus,  Cumanus,  and  Felix  (48-54  A.D.).  He  is 
mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  by  Josephus. 
It  was  this  high  priest  who  delivered  the  apostle  Paul 
to  procurator  Felix.  "  Ananias  the  high  priest  de- 
scended with  the  elders,  and  with  a  certain  orator 
named  Tertullus,  who  informed  the  governor  against 
Paul."  (Acts  xxiv,  I.)  According  to  Jewish  tradition, 
this  high  priest  is  chiefly  known  for  his  excessive  glut- 


300  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

tony.  What  the  Talmud  says  of  his  voracity  Is 
quite  phenomenal.  It  mentions  three  hundred  calves, 
as  many  casks  of  wine,  and  forty  pairs  of  young  pigeons 
as  having  been  brought  together  for  his  repast.  ("  Tal- 
mud," Bab.,  "  Pesachim,"  or  "  of  the  Passover,"  fol.  57, 
verso;  "  Kerihoth,"  or  "  Sins  which  Close  the  Entrance 
to  Eternal  Life,"  fol.  28,  verso;  Jos.,  "Ant.,"  XX.  V. 
2;  Derembourg,  work  quoted  above,  pp.  230,  234; 
Munk,  "  Palestine,"  p.  573,  n.  i.) 

Helcias,  simple  priest,  and  keeper  of  the  treasury 
of  the  Temple.  It  is  probably  from  him  that  Judas 
Iscariot  received  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver,  the  price 
of  his  treason.    (Jos.,  "Ant.,"  XX.  VIII.  11.) 

SCEVA,  one  of  the  principal  priests.  He  is  spoken 
of  in  the  Acts  apropos  of  his  seven  sons,  who  gave 
themselves  up  to  witchcraft.     (Acts  xix.  13,  14.) 

Such  are  the  chief  priests  that  constituted  the  first 
chamber  of  the  Sanhedrin  at  the  time  of  the  trial  of 
Christ. 

From  the  documents  which  we  have  consulted  and 
the  resume  which  we  have  just  given,  we  gather: 

1.  That  several  of  the  high  priests  were  personally 
dishonorable. 

2.  That  all  these  high  priests,  who  succeeded  each 
other  annually  in  the  Aaronic  office  in  utter  disregard 
of  the  order  established  by  God,  were  but  miserable 
intruders.  We  trust  that  these  expressions  will  not  of- 
fend our  dear  Israelitish  readers,  for  they  are  based 
on  the  statements  of  eminent  and  zealous  Jewish 
writers. 

To  begin  with  Josephus  the  historian.     Although 


CHARACTERS   OF   THE    SANHEDRISTS     301 

endeavoring  to  conceal  as  much  as  possible  the  shame- 
ful acts  committed  by  the  priests  composing  this  coun- 
cil, yet  he  was  unable,  in  a  moment  of  disgust,  to  re- 
frain from  stigmatizing  them.  "  About  this  time,"  he 
says,  "  there  arose  a  sedition  between  the  high  priests 
and  the  principal  men  of  the  multitude  of  Jerusalem, 
each  of  which  assembled  a  company  of  the  boldest  sort 
of  men,  and  of  those  that  loved  innovations,  and  be- 
came leaders  to  them.  And  when  they  struggled  to- 
gether they  did  it  by  casting  reproachful  words  against 
one  another,  and  by  throwing  stones  also.  And  there 
was  nobody  to  reprove  them;  but  these  disorders  were 
done  after  a  licentious  manner  in  the  city,  as  if  it  had 
no  government  over  it.  And  such  was  the  impudence 
and  boldness  that  had  seized  on  the  high  priests  that 
they  had  the  hardness  to  send  their  servants  into  the 
threshing-floors,  to  take  away  those  tithes  that  were  due 
the  [simple]  priests.  Insomuch  that  the  poorest  priests 
died  of  want."  ^  Such  are  the  acts,  the  spirit  of  equity 
and  kindness,  that  characterized  the  chief  judges  of 
Christ!  But  the  Talmud  goes  farther  still.  This 
book,  which  ordinarily  is  not  sparing  of  eulogies  on  the 
people  of  our  nation,  yet,  considering  separately  and  by 
name,  as  we  have  done,  the  high  priests  of  that  time, 
it  exclaims:  "What  a  plague  is  the  family  of  Simon 
Boethus;  cursed  be  their  lances!  What  a  plague  is 
the  family  of  Ananos;  cursed  be  their  hissing  of  vipers! 
What  a  plague  is  the  family  of  Cantharus;  cursed  be 
their  pens!  What  a  plague  is  the  family  of  Ismael  ben 
Phabi;  cursed  be  their  fists!     They  are  high  priests 

1  Jos.,  "Ant.,"  XX.  VIII.  8. 


302  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

themselves,  their  sons  are  treasurers,  their  sons-in-law 
are  commanders,  and  their  servants  strike  the  people 
with  staves."^  The  Talmud  continues:  "The  porch 
of  the  sanctuary  cried  out  four  times.  The  first  time, 
Depart  from  here,  descendants  of  Eli;  ^  ye  pollute  the 
Temple  of  the  Eternal!  The  second  time,  Let  Issachar 
ben  Keifar  Barchi  depart  from  here,  who  polluteth 
himself  and  profaneth  the  victims  consecrated  to  God! " 
The  third  time.  Widen  yourselves,  ye  gates  of  the  sanc- 
tuary, and  let  Israel  ben  Phabi  the  willful  enter,  that 
he  may  discharge  the  functions  of  the  priesthood!  Yet 
another  cry  was  heard.  Widen  yourselves,  ye  gates,  and 
let  Ananias  ben  Nebedeus  the  gourmand  enter,  that  he 
may  glut  himself  on  the  victims!  "  In  the  face  of  such 
low  morality,  avowed  by  the  least  to  be  suspected  of 
our  own  nation,  is  it  possible  to  restrain  one's  indigna- 
tion against  those  who  sat  at  the  trial  of  Christ  as  mem- 
bers of  the  chamber  of  priests?  This  indignation  be- 
comes yet  more  intense  when  one  remembers  that  an 
ambitious  hypocrisy,  having  for  its  aim  the  domineer- 
ing over  the  people,  had  perverted  the  law  of  Moses 
in  these  men.  The  majority  of  the  priests  belonged, 
in  fact,  to  the  Pharisaic  order,  the  members  of  which 
sect  made  religion  subservient  to  their  personal  ambi- 
tion; and  in  order  to  rule  over  the  people  with  more 
ease,  they  used  religion  as  a  tool  to  effect  this  purpose, 

^  "Talmud,"  "  Pesachim,"  or  "of  the  Passover,"  fol.  57,  verso. 

^  The  high  priests  designated  under  the  name  of  the  descendants  of  Eh" 
arc  those  who,  as  sons  of  the  high  priest  EH,  polluted  the  Temple  by  their 
immorality.     (See  I  Kings  iii.  22-25.) 

^  This  Issachar  vpas  a  priest  of  such  a  dainty  nature  that  in  order  to 
touch  the  sacrifices  he  covered  his  hands  with  silk.  ("Talmud,"  "Pesachim," 
or  "  of  the  Passover,"  fol.  57,  verso.) 


CHARACTERS    OF    THE    SANHEDRISTS     303 

encumbering  the  law  of  Moses  with  exaggerated  pre- 
cepts and  insupportable  burdens  which  they  strenu- 
ously imposed  upon  others,  but  failed  to  observe  them- 
selves. Can  we,  then,  be  astonished  at  the  murderous 
hatred  w^hich  these  false  and  ambitious  men  conceived 
for  Christ?  When  his  words,  sharper  than  a  sword, 
exposed  their  hypocrisy  and  displayed  the  corrupt  in- 
terior of  these  whitened  sepulchers  wearing  the  sem- 
blance of  justice,  the  hatred  they  already  cherished  for 
him  grew  to  a  frenzied  intensity.  They  never  forgave 
him  for  having  publicly  unmasked  them.  Hypocrisy 
never  forgives  that. 

Such  were  the  men  composing  the  council  of  priests, 
when  the  Sanhedrin  assembled  to  judge  Christ.  Were 
we  not  justified  in  forming  of  them  an  unfavorable 
opinion?  .  .  .  But  let  us  pass  on  to  the  second  cham- 
ber, viz.,  the  chamber  of  the  scribes. 

II.  Chamber  of  the  Scribes 

Let  us  recall  in  a  few  words  who  the  scribes  were. 
Chosen  indiscriminately  among  the  Levites  and  laity, 
they  formed  the  corps  savant  of  the  nation ;  they  were 
doctors  in  Israel,  and  were  held  in  high  esteem  and 
veneration.  It  is  well  known  what  respect  the  Jews, 
and  the  Eastern  nations  generally,  have  always  had 
for  their  wise  men. 

Next  to  the  chamber  of  the  priests,  that  of  the  scribes 
was  the  most  important.  But  from  information  gath- 
ered from  the  documents  to  which  we  have  already 
referred,  we  are  constrained  to  affirm  that,  with  a  few 


304  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

individual  exceptions,  this  chamber  was  no  better  than 
that  of  the  priests. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  the  names  and  histories  of 
the  wise  men  who  composed  the  chamber  of  the  scribes 
at  the  trial  of  Christ: 

Gamaliel,  surnamed  the  ancient.  He  was  a  very 
worthy  Israelite,  and  his  name  is  spoken  of  with  honor 
in  the  Talmud  as  well  as  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
He  belonged  to  a  noble  family,  being  a  grandson  of 
the  famous  Hillel,  who,  coming  from  Babylon  forty 
years  before  Christ,  taught  with  such  brilliant  success 
in  Jerusalem.  Gamaliel  acquired  so  great  a  reputation 
among  his  people  for  his  scientific  acquirements  that 
the  Talmud  could  say  of  him:  ''With  the  death  of 
Rabbi  Gamaliel  the  glory  of  the  law  has  departed." 
It  was  at  the  feet  of  this  doctor  that  Saul,  afterwards 
Paul  the  apostle,  studied  the  law  and  Jewish  traditions, 
and  we  know  how  he  gloried  in  this  fact.  Gamaliel 
had  also  among  his  disciples  Barnabas  and  Stephen, 
the  first  martyr  for  the  cause  of  Christ.  When  the 
members  of  the  Sanhedrin  discussed  the  expediency  of 
putting  the  apostles  to  death,  this  worthy  Israelite  pre- 
vented the  passing  of  the  sentence  by  pronouncing  these 
celebrated  words :  "  Ye  men  of  Israel,  take  heed  to  your- 
selves what  ye  intend  to  do  as  touching  these  men.  .  .  . 
And  now  I  say  unto  you,  refrain  from  these  men,  and 
let  them  alone;  for  if  this  counsel  be  of  men  it  will 
come  to  naught;  but  if  it  be  of  God  ye  cannot  over- 
throw it;  lest  haply  ye  be  found  even  to  fight  against 
God."  Gamaliel  died  nineteen  years  after  Christ  (52 
A.,D.).     (Acts  V.  34-39;  xxii.  3;  Mishna,  "  Sotah,"  or 


CHARACTERS   OF    THE    SANHEDRISTS    305 

"  the  Woman  Suspected  of  Adultery,"  C.  IX. ;  "  Sepher 
Juchasin,"  or  "the  Book  of  the  Ancestors,"  p.  53; 
David  Ganz,  "  Germe  de  David  ou  Chronologic  "  to 
4768 ;  Bartolocci,  "  Bibliotheca  magna  Rabbinica,"  T. 
i.  pp.  727-732.) 

Simon,  son  of  Gamaliel,  like  his  father,  had  a  seat 
in  the  assembly.  The  rabbinical  books  speak  of  him 
in  the  highest  terms  of  eulogy.  The  Mishna,  for  in- 
stance, attributes  to  him  this  sentence:  "Brought  up 
from  my  infancy  among  learned  men,  I  have  found 
nothing  that  is  of  greater  value  to  man  than  silence. 
Doctrines  are  not  the  chief  things,  but  w^ork.  He  who 
is  in  the  habit  of  much  talking  falls  easily  into  error." 
This  Simon  became  afterv^ards  the  intimate  friend  of 
the  too  celebrated  bandit,  John  of  Giscala,  w^hose  ex- 
cesses and  cruelty  tov^ard  the  Romans,  and  even  the 
Jev^s,  caused  Titus  to  order  the  pillaging  of  Jerusalem. 
Simon  was  killed  in  the  last  assault  in  70  A.D.  (David 
Ganz,  "  Chronologic"  to  4810;  Mishna,  "  Aboth,"  or 
"  of  the  Fathers,"  C.  I.;  "  Talmud,"  Jerusalem,  "  Ber- 
achoth,"  or  "of  Blessings,"  fol.  6,  verso;  "  Historia 
Doctorium  Misnicorum,"  J.  H.  Otthonis,  pp.  iio- 
113;  De  Champagny,  "Rome  et  la  Judee,"  T.  ii. 
86-171.) 

Onkelos  was  born  of  heathen  parents,  but  embraced 
Judaism,  and  became  one  of  the  most  eminent  disciples 
of  Gamaliel.  He  is  the  author  of  the  famous  Chaldaic 
paraphrase  of  the  Pentateuch.  Although  the  rabbin- 
ical books  do  not  mention  him  as  a  member  of  the 
Sanhedrin,  yet  it  is  highly  probable  that  he  belonged 
to  that  body,  his  writings  and  memory  having  always 


3o6  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

been  held  in  great  esteem  by  the  Jews;  even  at  the 
present  day  every  Jew  is  enjoined  to  read  weekly  a 
portion  of  his  version  of  the  books  of  Moses.  Onkelos 
carried  the  Pharisaical  intolerance  to  the  last  degree. 
Converted  from  idolatry  to  Judaism,  he  hated  the  Gen- 
tiles to  such  an  extent  that  he  cast  into  the  Dead  Sea, 
as  an  object  of  impurity,  the  sum  of  money  that  he 
had  inherited  from  his  parents.  We  can  easily  under- 
stand how  that,  with  such  a  disposition,  he  would  not 
be  favorably  inclined  toward  Jesus,  who  received  Gen- 
tiles and  Jews  alike.  ("  Talmud,"  "  Megilla,"  or  "  Fes- 
tival of  Esther,"  fol.  3,  verso;  "  Baba-bathra,"  or  "  the 
Last  Gate,"  fol.  134,  verso;  "  Succa,"  or  "  the  Festival 
of  Tabernacles,"  fol.  28,  verso;  "  Thosephthoth,"  or 
"  Supplements  to  the  Mishna,"  C.  v.;  Rabbi  Gedalia, 
"  Tzaltzeleth  Hakkabalah,"  or  "  the  Chain  of  the  Ka- 
balah,"  p.  28;  "  Histor.  Doct.  Misnic,"  p.  no;  De 
Rossi,  "  Dizionario  degli  Autori  Ebrei,"  p.  81.) 

Jonathan  ben  Uziel,  author  of  a  very  remarkable 
paraphrase  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Prophets.  There 
is  a  difference  of  opinion  regarding  the  precise  time 
at  which  he  lived.  Some  place  it  several  years  before 
Christ;  others  at  the  time  of  Christ.  We  believe,  how- 
ever, that  not  only  was  he  contemporary  with  Christ, 
but  that  he  was  also  one  of  his  judges.  In  support  of 
our  assertion  we  give  the  two  following  proofs,  which 
we  think  indisputable:  i.  Jonathan,  the  translator  of 
the  Prophets,  has  purposely  omitted  Daniel,  which 
omission  the  Talmud  explains  as  due  to  the  special 
intervention  of  an  angel  who  informed  him  that  the 
manner  in  which  the  prophet  speaks  of  the  death  of 


CHARACTERS    OF    THE    SANHEDRISTS     307 

the  Messiah  coincided  too  exactly  with  that  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth.  Now,  since  Jonathan  has  intentionally 
left  out  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  on  account  of  their 
coincidence  with  the  death  of  Christ,  it  proves  that  he 
could  not  have  lived  before  Christ,  but  must  have  been 
contemporary  with  him.  2.  In  comparing  the  para- 
phrase of  Onkelos  with  that  of  Jonathan,  we  find  that 
the  latter  had  made  use  of  the  work  of  the  former, 
who  lived  in  the  time  of  Christ.  Examples  may  be 
found  in  Deut.  xxii.  5,  Judges  v.  26,  Num.  xxi.  28,  29. 
If,  then,  Jonathan  utilized  the  work  of  Onkelos,  who 
lived  in  the  time  of  Christ,  the  fact  proves  beyond  ques- 
tion that  he  could  not  have  lived  before  Christ.  The 
Talmudists,  in  order  to  reward  this  person  for  having, 
through  his  hatred  of  Christ,  erased  the  name  of  Daniel 
from  the  roll  of  prophets,  eulogize  him  in  the  most 
absurd  manner.  They  relate  that  while  engaged  in  the 
study  of  the  law  of  God,  the  atmosphere  which  sur- 
rounded him,  and  came  in  contact  with  the  light  of  his 
understanding,  so  caught  fire  from  his  fervor  that  the 
birds,  silly  enough  to  be  attracted  toward  it,  were  con- 
sumed immediately.  ("Talmud,"  "  Succa,"  or  "the 
Festival  of  Tabernacles,"  fol.  28,  verso;  David  Ganz, 
"  Chronol."  4728;  Gesenius,  "  Comm.  on  Isaiah,"  Part 
I.  p.  65;  Zunz,  "  Culte  divin  des  Juifs,"  Berlin,  1832, 
p.  61 ;  Derembourg,  work  quoted  above,  p.  276;  Han- 
neburg,  "  Revelat  Bibliq.,"  ii.  163,  432.) 

Samuel  HakaTON,  or  the  Less.  Surnamed  to  dis- 
tinguish him  from  Samuel  the  prophet.  It  was  he  who, 
some  time  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  composed 
the  famous  imprecation  against  the  Christians,  called 


3o8  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

"  Birehath  Hamminim "  (Benedictions  of  Infidels). 
The  "  Birchath  Hamminim,"  says  the  Talmud,  and 
the  commentary  of  R.  Jarchi,  "was  composed  by  R. 
Samuel  Hakaton  at  Jabneh,  where  the  Sanhedrin  had 
removed  after  the  misconduct  of  the  Nazarene,  who 
taught  a  doctrine  contrary  to  the  words  of  the  living 
God."  The  following  is  the  singular  benediction: 
"  Let  there  be  no  hope  for  the  apostates  of  religion, 
and  let  all  heretics,  whosoever  they  may  be,  perish 
suddenly.  May  the  kingdom  of  pride  be  rooted  out; 
let  it  be  annihilated  quickly,  even  in  our  days!  Be 
blessed,  O  Lord,  ^vho  destroyest  the  impious,  and  hum- 
blest the  proud/ ''^  As  soon  as  Samuel  Hakaton  had 
composed  this  malediction,  it  was  inserted  as  an  addi- 
tional blessing  in  the  celebrated  prayer  of  the  syna- 
gogue, the  "  Shemonah-Essara  "  (the  eighteen  bless- 
ings). These  blessings  belonged  to  the  time  of  Ezra 
— that  is  to  say,  five  centuries  before  the  Christian  era; 
and  every  Jew  has  to  recite  it  daily.  St.  Jerome  was 
not  ignorant  of  this  strange  prayer.  He  says:  "  The 
Jews  anathematize  three  times  daily  in  their  synagogue 
the  name  of  the  Christian,  disguising  it  under  the  name 
of  Nazarene.''''  According  to  R.  Gedalia,  Samuel  died 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  about  fifteen  or 
twenty  years  after  Christ.  ("  Talmud,"  "  Berachoth," 
or  "of  Prayers,"  fol.  28,  verso;  "  Megilla,"  or  "the 
Festival  of  Esther,"  fol.  28,  verso;  St.  Jerome,  "  Com- 
ment, on  Isaiam,"  B.  II.  C.  V.  18,  19;  Tom.  iv.  p.  81 
of  the  "  Valarsius,"  quarto  edition ;  Vitringa,  "  de  Syna- 
goga  vetr.,"  T.  ii.  p.  1036,  1047,  105 1 ;  Castellus,  "  Lex- 
icon heptaglotton,"  art.  Min.) 


CHARACTERS   OF   THE    SANHEDRISTS     309 

Chanania  ben  Chiskia.  He  was  a  great  concili- 
ator in  the  midst  of  the  doctrinal  quarrels  so  common 
at  that  time;  and  it  happened  that  the  rival  schools 
of  Shammai  and  Hillel,  which  were  not  abolished  with 
the  death  of  their  founders,  often  employed  him  as 
their  arbitrator.  This  skillful  umpire  did  not  always 
succeed,  however,  in  calming  the  disputants;  for  we 
read  in  the  ancient  books  that  in  the  transition  from 
force  of  argument  to  argument  of  force,  the  mem- 
bers of  the  schools  of  Shammai  and  Hillel  frequently 
came  to  blows.  Hence  the  French  expression  se  cham- 
mailler.  It  happened,  however,  according  to  the  Tal- 
mud, that  Chanania  once  departed  from  his  usual  sys- 
tem of  equilibrium  in  favor  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel. 
It  appears  that  on  one  occasion  the  most  influential 
members  of  the  Sanhedrin  proposed  to  censure,  and 
even  reject,  the  book  of  this  prophet,  because,  accord- 
ing to  their  opinion,  it  contained  several  passages  in 
contradiction  of  the  law  of  Moses;  but  Chanania  de- 
fended it  with  so  much  eloquence  that  they  were 
obliged  to  desist  from  their  project.  This  fact  alone, 
reported  fully  as  it  is  in  the  Talmud,  would  be  suffi- 
cient to  show  the  laxity  of  the  study  of  the  prophecies 
at  that  time.  Although  the  exact  date  of  his  death  is 
uncertain,  it  is,  nevertheless,  sure  that  it  took  place 
before  the  destruction  of  the  Temple.  ("  Talmud," 
"  Chagiga,"  or  "  the  obligations  of  the  males  to  present 
themselves  three  times  a  year  at  Jerusalem,"  2,  13; 
"  Shabbath,"  or  "  of  the  Sabbath,"  C.  I.;  "  Sepher  Ju- 
chasin,"  or  *'  the  Book  of  Ancestors,"  p.  57.) 

ISMAEL  ben  Eliza,  renowned  for  the  depth  of  his 


3IO  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

mind  and  the  beauty  of  his  face.  The  rabbins  record 
that  he  was  learned  in  the  most  mysterious  things;  for 
example,  he  could  command  the  angels  to  descend  from 
heaven  and  ascend  thither.  We  have  it  also  from  the 
same  authority  that  his  mother  held  him  in  such  high 
admiration  that  one  day  on  his  return  from  school  she 
washed  his  feet,  and,  through  respect  for  him,  drank 
the  water  she  had  used  for  that  purpose.  His  death 
was  of  a  no  less  romantic  nature.  It  appears  that  after 
the  capture  of  Jerusalem,  the  daughter  of  Titus  was 
so  struck  with  his  beauty  that  she  obtained  permission 
of  her  father  to  have  the  skin  of  his  face  taken  off  after 
his  death,  which  skin  she  had  embalmed,  and,  having 
perfumed  it,  she  sent  it  to  Rome  to  figure  among  the 
spoils  as  a  trophy.  ("  Talmud,"  "  Aboda  Zarah,"  or 
"of  Idolatry,"  C.  L;  Rabbi  Gedalia,  "  Tzaltzeleth 
Hakkabalah,"  or  "  the  Chain  of  the  Kabalah,"  p.  29; 
"  Sepher  Juchasin,"  or  "  the  Book  of  Ancestors,"  p.  25; 
"Tosephoth  Kiddushin,"  C.  IV.) 

Rabbi  Zadok.  He  was  about  forty  years  old  at  the 
trial  of  Christ,  and  died  after  the  burning  of  the  Tem- 
ple, aged  over  seventy.  The  Talmud  relates  that  for 
forty  years  he  ceased  not  from  fasting,  that  God  might 
so  order  it  that  the  Temple  should  not  be  destroyed  by 
fire.  Upon  this  the  question  is  propounded  in  the  same 
book,  but  no  answer  given,  as  to  how  this  rabbin  could 
have  known  that  the  Temple  was  threatened  with  so 
great  a  calamity.  We  believe  that  Rabbi  Zadok  could 
have  obtained  information  of  this  terrible  event  in  one 
of  the  two  ways — either  from  the  prophetic  voice  of 
Daniel  which  proclaimed  more  than  forty  years  pre- 


CHARACTERS   OF   THE    SANHEDRISTS     311 

vious  to  the  occurrence  that  abomination  and  desola- 
tion should  crush  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem  when  the 
Messiah  should  have  been  put  to  death;  or  by  the 
voice  of  Jesus  himself,  who  said  forty  years  before  the 
destruction  of  the  Temple:  ''See  ye  not  all  these 
things?"  (i.e.,  the  buildings  of  the  Temple)  "verily, 
verily  I  say  unto  you.  There  shall  not  be  left  here 
one  stone  upon  another  that  shall  not  be  thrown 
down."  (Mishna,  "  Shabbath,"  or  "  of  the  Sabbath," 
C.  XXIV.  5  to  end;  "  Eduth,"  or  "of  Testimony," 
C.  Vn.  I ;  "  Aboth,"  or  "  of  the  Fathers  of  Tradi- 
tion," IV.  5;  David  Ganz,  "  Chronol."  4785;  "  Seph. 
Juchasin,"  fol.  21,  26;  Schikardi,  "Jus  Regium  He- 
braeorum,"  p.  468;  Dan.  ix.  25-27;  Luke  xxi.  6;  Matt, 
xxvi.  2.) 

JOCHANAN  ben  Zakai.  The  rabbinical  books  accord 
to  this  rabbi  an  extraordinary  longevity.  From  their 
writings  it  would  appear  that,  like  Moses,  he  lived  a 
hundred  and  twenty  years,  forty  years  of  which  he  con- 
secrated to  manual  labor;  another  forty  to  the  study 
of  the  law;  and  the  last  forty  years  of  his  life  he  de- 
voted to  imparting  his  knowledge  to  others.  His  repu- 
tation as  a  savant  was  so  well  established  that  he  was 
surnamed  the  Splendor  of  Wisdom.  After  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  Temple,  he  rallied  together  the  remaining 
members  of  the  Sanhedrin  to  Jabneh,  where  he  pre- 
sided over  this  remnant  for  the  last  four  or  five  years 
of  his  life.  He  died  in  the  year  73  A.D.  When  he 
breathed  his  last,  says  the  Mishna,  a  cry  of  anguish 
was  heard,  saying:  "With  the  death  of  Jochanan  ben 
Zakai  the  splendor  of  wisdom  has  been  quenched!" 


312  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

We  have,  however,  other  information  regarding  this 
rabbi  which  is,  so  to  speak,  like  the  reverse  side  of  a 
medal.  The  Bereshith  Rabba  says  that  Rabbi  Jocha- 
nan  was  in  the  habit  of  eulogizing  himself  in  the  most 
extravagant  manner,  and  gives  the  following  as  a  speci- 
men of  the  praises  he  bestowed  upon  himself:  "  If  the 
skies  were  parchment,  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  world 
writers,  and  all  the  trees  of  the  forest  pens,  all  these 
would  not  suffice  to  transcribe  the  doctrines  which  he 
had  learned  from  the  masters."  What  humility  of  lan- 
guage! One  day  his  disciples  asked  him  to  what  he 
attributed  his  long  life.  "  To  my  wisdom  and  piety," 
was  his  reply  in  his  tone  of  habitual  modesty.  Besides, 
if  we  were  to  judge  of  his  moral  character  by  an  ordi- 
nance of  which  he  is  the  author,  his  morality  might 
be  equal  to  the  standard  of  his  humility.  He  abolished 
the  Mosaical  command  of  the  ordeal  of  bitter  waters, 
immorally  isolating  a  passage  in  Isaiah  from  its  con- 
text. Finally,  to  fill  up  the  measure  of  his  honesty,  he 
became  one  of  the  lewdest  courtiers  of  Titus,  and  the 
destroyer  of  his  country.  But  while  obsequious  to  hu- 
man grandeur,  he  was  obdurate  to  the  warnings  of  God, 
and  died  proud  and  impenitent.  ("Talmud,"  "  Rosh 
Hashanah,"  or  "of  the  New  Year,"  fol.  20,  recto; 
31,  recto;  "  Sotah,"  or  "of  the  Woman  Suspected," 
etc.,  IX.  9;  "Yoma,"  or  "the  Day  of  Atonement," 
fol.  39,  recto,  and  43;  "  Gittin,"  or  "of  Divorce," 
fol.  56,  verso  and  recto;  "  Succa,"  or  "  of  the  Festival 
of  Tabernacles,"  fol.  28,  verso;  Mishna,  Chapter, 
"  Egla  arupha";  "  Sepher  Juchasin,"  or  "the  Book 
of  Ancestors,"  fol.  20,  recto;  "  Seph.   Hakkabalah"; 


CHARACTERS   OF   THE    SANHEDRISTS     313 

Otthonis,  "  Hist.  Doct.  Misn.,"  pp.  93-103;  Hosea  iv. 
14;  Jos.,  "  Wars,"  VL  V.  3 ;  De  Champagny,  "  Rome 
et  la  Judee,"  T.  i.  p.  158.) 

Abba  Saul.  He  was  of  prodigious  height,  and  had 
the  charge  of  superintending  the  burials  of  the  dead, 
that  everything  might  be  done  according  to  the  law. 
The  rabbins,  who  delight  in  the  marvelous,  affirm  that 
in  the  exercise  of  his  duties  he  found  the  thigh  bone 
of  Og,  the  King  of  Bashan,  and  the  right  eye  of  Absa- 
lom. By  virtue  of  the  marrow  extracted  from  the  thigh 
of  Og,  he  was  enabled  to  chase  a  young  buck  for  three 
leagues;  as  for  the  eye  of  Absalom,  it  was  so  deep 
that  he  could  have  hidden  himself  in  it  as  if  in  a  cav- 
ern. These  stories,  no  doubt,  appear  very  puerile;  and 
yet,  according  to  a  Talmudical  book  (Menorath-Ham- 
moer,  "  the  lighted  candlestick"),  which  is  considered 
of  great  authority  even  in  the  modern  [orthodox]  syna- 
gogue, we  must  judge  of  these  matters  in  the  following 
manner:  "  Everything  which  our  doctors  have  taught 
in  the  Medrashim  (allegoric  or  historical  commenta- 
ries) we  are  bound  to  consider  and  believe  in  as  the 
law  of  Moses  our  master;  and  if  we  find  anything  in 
it  which  appears  exaggerated  and  incredible,  we  must 
attribute  it  to  the  weakness  of  our  understandings, 
rather  than  to  their  teachings;  and  whoever  turns  into 
ridicule  whatever  they  have  said  will  be  punished." 
According  to  Maimonides,  Abba  Saul  died  before  the 
destruction  of  the  Temple.  (Mishna,  "  Middoth,"  or 
"  of  the  Dimensions  of  the  Temple,"  Chapter,  "  Har 
habbaith";  "Talmud,"  "  Nidda,"  or  "the  Purifica- 
tion of  Women,"  C.  HI.  fol.  24,  recto;  Maimonides, 


314  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

"  Proef  ad  zeraim";  Drach,  "  Harmonies  entre  I'Eglise 
et  la  Synagogue,"  T.  ii.  p.  375.) 

R.  Chanania,  surnamed  the  Vicar  of  the  Priests. 
The  Mishna  attributes  to  him  a  saying  which  brings 
clearly  before  us  the  social  position  of  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple in  the  last  days  of  Jerusalem.  "  Pray,"  said  he, 
"  for  the  Roman  Empire;  for  should  the  terror  of  its 
power  disappear  in  Palestine,  neighbor  will  devour 
neighbor  alive."  This  avowal  shows  the  deplorable 
state  of  Judea,  and  the  divisions  to  which  she  had  be- 
come a  prey.  The  Romans  seem,  however,  to  have 
cared  very  little  for  the  sympathy  of  R.  Chanania,  for, 
having  possessed  themselves  of  the  city,  they  put  him 
to  death.  (Mishna,  "Aboth,"  or  "of  the  Fathers  of 
Tradition,"  C.  HI.  2;  "  Zevachim,"  or  "  of  Sacrifices," 
C.  IX.  3 ;  "  Eduth,"  or  "  of  Testimony,"  C.  II.  i ; 
David  Ganz,  "  Chronologie,"  4826;  "  Sepher  Jucha- 
sin,"  or  "  the  Book  of  Ancestors,"  p.  57.) 

Rabbi  Eleazar  ben  PartAH,  one  of  the  most  es- 
teemed scribes  of  the  Sanhedrin,  on  account  of  his 
scientific  knowledge.  Already  very  aged  at  the  de- 
struction of  the  Temple,  he  yet  lived  several  years  after 
that  national  calamity.  ("  Talmud,"  "  Gittin,"  or  "  of 
Divorces,"  C.  III.  4;  "  Sepher  Juchasin,"  p.  31.) 

Rabbi  Nachum  Halbalar.  He  is  mentioned  in 
the  rabbinical  books  as  belonging  to  the  Sanhedrin 
in  the  year  28  A.D.,  but  nothing  particular  is  mentioned 
of  his  history.  ("  Talmud,"  "  Peah,"  or  "  of  the  An- 
gle," C.  II.  6,  "  Sanhedrin.") 

Rabbi  SiMON  Hamizpah.  He  also  is  said  to  have 
belonged  to  the  Sanhedrin  in  the  year  28  A.D.     Beyond 


CHARACTERS    OF   THE    SANHEDRISTS     315 

this  but  little  is  known.  (''Talmud,"  "  Peah,"  C. 
n.  6.) 

These  are,  according  to  Jewish  tradition,  the  princi- 
pal scribes,  or  doctors,  that  composed  the  second  cham- 
ber of  the  Sanhedrin  at  the  time  of  the  trial  of  Christ. 
The  ancient  books  which  speak  of  them  are,  of  course, 
filled  with  their  praises.  Nevertheless,  blended  with 
these  praises  are  some  remarks  which  point  to  the  pre- 
dominant vice  of  these  men — namely,  pride.  We  read 
in  Rabbi  Nathan's  book,  "Aruch  "  (a  Talmudical  dic- 
tionary of  great  authority^)  :  "  7n  the  past  and  more 
honorable  tunes  the  titles  of  rabbin,  rabbi,  or  rav,^  to 
designate  the  learned  men  of  Babylon  and  Palestine, 
were  unknown;  thus  when  Hillel  came  from  Babylon 
the  title  of  rabbi  was  not  added  to  his  name.  It  was 
the  same  with  the  prophets,  who  were  styled  simply 
Isaiah,  Haggai,  etc.,  and  not  Rabbi  Isaiah,  Rabbi  Hag- 
gai,  etc.  Neither  did  Ezra  bring  the  title  of  rabbi  with 
him  from  Babylon.  It  was  not  until  the  time  of  Gama- 
liel, Simon,  and  Jochanan  ben  Zackai  that  this  impos- 
ing title  was  first  introduced  among  the  worthies  of  the 
Sanhedrin. ^^ 

This  pompous  appellation  appears,  indeed,  for  the 
first  time  among  the  Jews  contemporary  with  Christ. 
"  They  love  the  uppermost  rooms  at  feasts,  and  the 
chief  seats  in  the  synagogues,  and  greetings  in  the  mar- 
ket-places, and  to  be  called  of  men,  Rabbi,   Rabbi." 

1  Rabbi  Nathan,  son  of  Rabbi  Yechiel,  was  the  disciple  of  the  cele- 
brated Moses,  the  preacher  and  first  rabbi  of  the  synagogue  at  Rome  in 
the  ninth  century.  His  work  forms  a  large  folio  volume,  and  contains 
some  minute  explanations  of  the  most  difficult  passages  in  the  "Talmud." 

2  I.  e.,  lord. 


2i6  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Proud  of  their  titles  and  learning,  they  laid  claim  to 
the  foremost  rank  in  society.  A  wise  man,  say  they, 
should  be  preferred  to  a  king;  the  king  takes  the  prece- 
dence of  the  high  priest;  the  priest  of  the  Levite;  the 
Levite  of  the  ordinary  Israelite.  The  wise  man  should 
be  preferred  to  the  king,  for  if  the  wise  man  should 
die  he  could  not  easily  be  replaced;  while  the  king 
could  be  succeeded  by  an  Israelite  of  any  order}  Bas- 
ing the  social  status  on  this  maxim  we  are  not  aston- 
ished to  find  in  the  Talmud  ~  that  at  a  certain  time 
twenty-four  persons  were  excommunicated  for  having 
failed  to  render  to  the  rabbi  the  reverence  due  his 
position.  Indeed,  a  very  small  offense  was  often  suf- 
ficient to  call  forth  maledictions  from  this  haughty  and 
intolerant  dignitary.  Punishment  was  mercilessly  in- 
flicted wherever  there  was  open  violation  of  any  one 
of  the  following  rules  established  by  the  rabbis  them- 
selves : 

If  any  one  opposes  his  rabbi,  he  is  guilty  in  the  same 
degree  as  if  he  opposed  God  himself.^ 

If  any  one  quarrels  with  his  rabbi,  it  is  as  if  he 
contended  with  the  living  God.^ 

If  any  one  thinks  evil  of  his  rabbi,  it  is  as  if  he 
thought  evil  of  the  Eternal.^ 

This  self-sufficiency  was  carried  to  such  an  enormous 
extent  that  when  Jerusalem  fell  into  the  hands  of  Titus, 

^  ' '  Talmud,"  Jerus., "  Horayoth,"  or  "  Regulations  of  Justice,''  fol.  84,  recto. 
^  "Talmud,"  Jerus.,  "  Shevuoth,"  or  *'  of  Oaths,"  fol.  19,  verso. 
^  "Tanchumah,"  or  "Book  of  Consolation,"  fol.  68,  recto. 
*  "Tanchumah,"  or  "  Book  of  Consolation,"  fol.  68,  recto. 
^  "  Tanchumah,"  or  "  Book  of  Consolation,"  fol.  68,  recto,  and  "San- 
hedrin,"  fol.  no,  verso. 


CHARACTERS   OF   THE    SANHEDRISTS     317 

who  came  against  it  armed  with  the  sword  of  ven- 
geance of  Jehovah,  Rabbi  Jehudah  wrote  with  an  un- 
flinching pen :  "  //  Jerusalem  was  destroyed,  we  need 
look  for  no  other  cause  than  the  people's  want  of  re- 
spect for  the  rabbis.''^  -^ 

We  ask  now  of  every  sincere  Israelite,  What  opinion 
can  be  formed  of  the  members  of  the  second  chamber 
who  are  about  to  assist  in  pronouncing  judgment  upon 
Christ?  Could  impartiality  be  expected  of  those  proud 
and  selfish  men,  whose  lips  delighted  in  nothing  so 
much  as  sounding  their  own  praises?  What  appre- 
hensions must  one  not  have  of  an  unjust  and  cruel  ver- 
dict when  he  remembers  it  was  of  these  very  men  that 
Christ  had  said:  "  Beware  of  the  scribes,  which  desire 
to  walk  in  long  robes;  they  make  broad  their  phylac- 
teries and  enlarge  the  borders  of  their  garments;  they 
love  greetings  in  the  market,  and  to  be  called  Rabbi, 
Rabbi;  which  devour  widows'  houses;  and  for  show 
make  long  prayers."  ^  The  remembrance  of  this  re- 
buke, so  galling  to  their  pride,  continually  rankled  in 
their  minds;  and  when  the  opportunity  came,  with 
what  remorseless  hate  did  they  wreak  upon  him  their 
vengeance!  We  may,  then,  conclude  from  the  fore- 
going facts  that  the  members  of  the  chamber  of  the 
scribes  were  no  better  than  those  composing  the  cham- 
ber of  the  priests.  To  this  assertion,  however,  there  is 
one  exception  to  be  made;  for,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  there  was  among  those  arrogant  and  unscrupulous 


1  "Talmud/^ "Shabbath,"  or  "of  the  Sabbath,"  fol.  iig,  recto. 

2  Luke  XX.  46;  Matt,  xxiii.  5-7;  Mark  xii.  38,  39. 


3i8  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

men  ^  one  whose  sense  of  justice  was  not  surpassed  by 
his  great  learning.    That  man  was  Gamaliel. 


III.  Chamber  of  the  Elders 

This  chamber  was  the  least  influential  of  the  three; 
hence,  but  few  names  of  the  persons  composing  it  at 
the  period  to  which  we  refer  have  been  preserved. 

Joseph  of  Arimathea.  The  Gospel  makes  of  him 
the  following  eulogy:  Rich  man;  honorable  counselor; 
good  and  just  man ;  the  same  had  not  consented  to  the 
counsel  and  deed  of  the  others.  Joseph  of  Arimathea 
is  called  in  the  Vulgate,  or  the  Latin  version  of  the 
Bible,  "  noble  centurion,"  because  he  was  one  of  the 
ten  magistrates  or  senators  who  had  the  principal  au- 
thority in  Jerusalem  under  the  Romans.  His  noble 
position  is  more  clearly  marked  in  the  Greek  version. 
That  he  was  one  of  the  seventy  may  be  concluded,  first, 
because  it  was  common  to  admit  senators  who  were 
considered  the  ancients  of  the  people  in  this  assembly; 
they  were  indeed  the  chiefs  and  the  princes  of  the 
nation — seniores  populi,  principes  nostri]  second,  be- 
cause these  words,  "  he  had  not  consented  to  the  counsel 
and  deed  of  the  others,"  proves  that  he  had  a  right  to 
be  in  the  grand  assembly  and  take  part  in  the  discus- 
sions. (Matt,  xxvii.  57-59;  Mark  xv.  43-46;  Luke 
xxiii.  50;  John  xix.  38;  Jacobi  Alting,  "  Schilo  seu  de 
Vaticinio  patriarchae  Jacobi,"  p.  310;  Goschler,  Dic- 
tion. Encyclopediq.;  word,  "Arimathea";  Cornelius 

^  Some   remarkable   pages   respecting  the  pride  of  the   Jewish   scribes 
and  doctors  may  be  found  in  Bossuet's  "Meditations  on  the  Gospel." 


CHARACTERS   OF   THE   SANHEDRISTS     319 

Lapidus,  "  Comment,  in  Script,  sac,"  edition  Vives, 
T.  XV.  p.  638,  second  col.) 

NiCODEMUS.  St.  John  the  Evangelist  says  that  he 
was  by  profession  a  Pharisee,  a  prince  of  the  Jews, 
a  master  in  Israel,  and  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrin, 
where  he  one  day  attempted  to  oppose  his  colleagues 
by  speaking  in  defense  of  Jesus.  This  act  brought 
down  upon  him  the  disdainful  retort  from  the  others, 
"  Art  thou  also  a  Galilean?  "  He  was  one,  it  is  true, 
but  in  secret.  We  know  from  the  Gospel  account  of 
him  that  he  possessed  great  riches,  and  that  he  used 
nearly  a  hundred  pounds  of  myrrh  and  spices  for  the 
burial  of  Christ.  The  name  of  Nicodemus  is  mentioned 
in  the  Talmud  also;  and,  although  it  was  known 
that  his  attachment  to  Christ  was  great,  he  is,  never- 
theless, spoken  of  with  honor.  But  this  fact  may  be 
due  to  his  great  wealth.  There  were,  says  the  Hebrew 
book,  three  eminent  men  in  Jerusalem — Nicodemus  ben 
Gurien,  ben  Tzitzith  Hacksab,  ben  Kalba  Shevuah — 
each  of  whom  could  have  supported  the  whole  city 
for  ten  years.  (John  iii.  i-io;  vii.  50-52;  xix.  39; 
"  Talmud,"  "  Gittin,"  or  "  of  Divorces,"  C.  V.  fol.  56, 
verso;  "  Abodah  Zarah,"  or  "  of  Idolatry,"  C.  II.  fol. 
25,  verso;  ''  Taanith,"  or  "  of  the  Fast  Days,"  III.  fol. 
19,  recto;  fol.  20,  verso;  Midrash  Rabbah  on  "  Kohe- 
leth,"  VII.  11;  David  Ganz,  '' Chron."  4757;  Knap- 
pius,  "  Comment,  in  Colloquium  Christi  cum  Nico- 
demo";  Cornelius  Lapidus,  "Comment,  in  Joann," 
Cap.  III.  et  seq.) 

Ben  Kalba  Shevuah.  After  stating  that  he  was 
one  of  the  three  rich  men  of  Jerusalem,  the  Talmud 


320  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

adds:  "  His  name  was  given  to  him  because  whosoever 
entered  his  house  as  hungry  as  a  dog  came  out  filled." 
There  is  no  doubt  that  his  high  financial  position  se- 
cured for  him  one  of  the  first  places  in  the  chamber 
of  the  ancients.  His  memory,  according  to  Ritter,  is 
still  preserved  among  the  Jews  in  Jerusalem.  ("  Tal- 
mud," "  Gittin,"  or  ''  of  Divorces,"  C.  V.  fol.  56,  verso; 
David  Ganz,  "  Chronol."  4757;  Ritter,  "  Erdkunde," 
XVI.  478.) 

Ben  Tzitzith  Hacksab.  The  effeminacy  of  this 
third  rich  man  is  made  known  to  us  by  the  Talmud, 
where  it  is  stated  that  the  border  of  his  pallium  trained 
itself  always  on  the  softest  carpets.  Like  Nicodemus 
and  Kalba  Shevuah,  he  no  doubt  belonged  to  the  San- 
hedrin.  (''Talmud,"  "Gittin,"  C.  V.  fol.  56,  verso; 
David  Ganz,  "  Chron."  4757.) 

Simon.  From  Josephus  the  historian  we  learn  that 
he  was  of  Jewish  parentage,  and  was  highly  esteemed 
in  Jerusalem  on  account  of  the  accurate  knowledge  of 
the  law  which  he  possessed.  He  had  the  boldness,  one 
day,  to  convoke  an  assembly  of  the  people  and  to  bring 
an  accusation  against  King  Herod  Agrippa,  who,  he 
said,  deserved,  on  account  of  his  bad  conduct,  that  the 
entrance  into  the  sacred  portals  should  be  forbidden 
him.  This  took  place  eight  or  nine  years  after  Christ 
— that  is  to  say,  in  the  year  42  or  43  A.D.  We  may 
safely  conclude  that  a  man  who  had  power  enough  to 
convoke  an  assembly  and  sufficient  reputation  and 
knowledge  to  dare  accuse  a  king,  must  undoubtedly 
have  belonged  to  the  council  of  the  Sanhedrin.  Be- 
sides, his  birth  alone  at  a  time  when  nobility  of  origin 


CHARACTERS   OF   THE    SANHEDRISTS     321 

constituted,  as  we  have  already  said,  a  right  to  hon- 
ors, would  have  thrown  wide  open  to  him  the  doors 
of  the  assembly.  (Jos.,  "Ant,"  XIX.  VH.  4;  De- 
rembourg,  "  Essai  sur  I'histoire  et  la  geographie  de 
la  Palestine,"  p.  207,  n.  i ;  Frankel,  Monatsschrift.y 
III.  440.) 

Doras  was  a  very  influential  citizen  of  Jerusalem, 
and  is  thus  spoken  of  by  Josephus.  He  was,  how- 
ever, a  man  of  cruel  and  immoral  character,  not  hesi- 
tating, for  the  sake  of  ingratiating  himself  with  Gov- 
ernor Felix,  to  cause  the  assassination  of  Jonathan,  the 
high  priest  who  had  made  himself  obnoxious  to  that 
ruler  by  some  just  remonstrances  respecting  his  admin- 
istration. Doras  effected  the  assassination  in  cold  blood 
by  means  of  murderers  hired  at  the  expense  of  Felix 
{52  or  53  A.D.).  The  prominence  which  this  man  for 
a  long  time  maintained  in  Jerusalem  warrants  the  pre- 
sumption that  he  was  a  member  of  the  Sanhedrin. 
(Jos.,  "Ant.,"  XX.  Vni.  5.) 

John,  son  of  John. 

Dorotheas,  son  of  Nathanael. 

Tryphon,  son  of  Theudion. 

Cornelius,  son  of  Ceron. 

These  four  personages  were  sent  as  ambassadors  by 
the  Jews  of  Jerusalem  to  Emperor  Claudius  in  the 
year  44,  when  Cuspius  Fadus  was  governor  of  Judea. 
Claudius  mentions  this  fact  in  a  letter  sent  by  him  to 
Cuspius  Fadus,  and  which  Josephus  has  preserved.  It 
is  very  probable  that  either  they  themselves  or  their 
fathers  were  members  of  the  chamber  of  the  ancients; 
for  the  Jews  appointed  as  their  ambassadors  only  such 


222  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

members  of  the  Sanhedrin  as  were  distinguished  for 
superior  learning.     (Jos.,  "Ant,"  XX.  I.  i,  2.) 

The  rabbinical  books  limit  their  information  con- 
cerning the  members  of  this  chamber  to  the  names  we 
have  just  mentioned.  To  be  guided,  then,  by  the  docu- 
ments quoted,  one  would  suppose  that  although  this 
chamber  was  the  least  important  of  the  three,  yet  its 
members  were  perhaps  more  just  than  those  composing 
the  other  two,  and  consequently  manifested  less  vehe- 
mence against  Christ  during  His  trial.  But  a  statement 
made  by  Josephus  the  historian  proves  beyond  doubt 
that  this  third  chamber  was  made  up  of  men  no  better 
than  were  to  be  found  in  the  others.  It  was  from 
among  the  wealthy  element  of  Jewish  society,  says  Jo- 
sephus, that  Sadduceeism  received  most  of  its  disciples.* 
Since,  then,  the  chamber  of  ancients  was  composed 
principally  of  the  rich  men  of  Jerusalem,  we  may  safely 
conclude  that  the  majority  of  its  members  were  infected 
with  the  errors  of  Sadduceeism — that  is  to  say,  with 
a  creed  that  taught  that  the  soul  dies  before  the  body.- 
We  are,  then,  in  the  presence  of  real  materialists,  who 
consider  the  destiny  of  man  to  consist  in  the  enjoyment 
of  material  and  worldly  things,^  and  who  are  so  car- 
nally minded  that  it  would  seem  as  if  the  prophetic 
indignation  of  David  had  stigmatized  them  beforehand 
when  he  says :  "  They  have  so  debased  themselves  as 
to  become  like  the  beasts  that  have  no  understanding."  ^ 
Let  not  our  readers  imagine  that  in  thus  speaking  we 
at  all  mean  to  do  injustice  to  the  memory  of  these 

1  Jos.,  "Ant.,"  XVIII.  I.  4.  3  Munk,  "Palestine,"  p.  515. 

2  Jos.,  "Ant.,"  XVIII.  I.  4.  4  Psalms. 


CHARACTERS   OF   THE    SANHEDRISTS    323 

men.  A  fact  of  great  importance  proves  indisputably 
that  Sadducees  or  Epicureans  were  numerous  among 
the  Sanhedrin.  When,  several  years  after  the  trial 
of  Christ,  the  apostle  Paul  had  in  his  turn  to  appear 
before  that  body,  he  succeeded  by  the  skill  of  his  ora- 
tory in  turning  the  doctrinal  differences  of  that  assem- 
bly to  his  benefit.  "  Men  and  brethren,"  he  exclaimed, 
"  I  am  a  Pharisee,  the  son  of  a  Pharisee;  of  the  hope 
and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  I  am  called  in  ques- 
tion." ^  Hardly  had  the  apostle  pronounced  these 
words  when  a  hot  discussion  arose  between  the  Saddu- 
cees and  the  Pharisees,  all  of  them  rising  and  speaking 
in  great  confusion — some  for  the  resurrection,  others 
against  it — and  it  was  in  the  tumult  of  recrimination 
and  general  uproar  that  the  apostle  was  able  peacefully 
to  withdraw.  Such  was  the  state  of  things  in  the  su- 
preme council  of  the  Hebrews;  and  men  of  notorious 
heresy,  and  even  impiety,  were  appointed  as  judges 
to  decide  on  questions  of  doctrine.  Among  these  mate- 
rialists there  were,  however,  two  just  men;  and,  like 
Lot  among  the  wicked  inhabitants  of  Sodom,  there 
were  in  this  assembly  Nicodemus  and  Joseph  of  Ari- 
mathea. 

We  shall  now  briefly  sum  up  the  contents  of  the  pre- 
ceding chapter.  We  possess  certain  information  re- 
specting more  than  one  half  of  the  seventy-one  mem- 
bers of  the  Sanhedrin.  We  know  almost  all  the  high 
priests,  who,  as  we  have  already  said,  formed  the  prin- 
cipal element  of  this  council.  This  majority,  as  we 
have  intimated,  is  sufficient  for  the  forming  of  an  esti- 

^  Acts  xxiii.  6. 


324  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

mate  of  the  moral  tone  of  all  the  judges;  and  before 
the  debates  begin,  it  is  easy  to  foresee  the  issue  of  the 
trial  of  Christ. 

What,  indeed,  could  have  been  the  issue  of  a  trial 
before  the  first  chamber,  composed  as  it  was  of  demor- 
alized, ambitious,  and  scheming  priests?  of  priests  who 
were  mostly  Pharisees — that  is  to  say,  men  of  narrow 
minds,  careful  only  of  the  external,  haughty,  overbear- 
ing, and  self-satisfied,  believing  themselves  to  be  both 
infallible  and  impeccable?^  It  is  true  they  expected 
a  Messiah;  but  their  Messiah  was  to  subdue  unto  them 
all  their  enemies,  impose  for  their  benefit  a  tax  on  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  uphold  them  in  all  the 
absurdities  with  which  they  have  loaded  the  law  of 
Moses. 

But  this  man  who  is  about  to  be  brought  before  them 
has  exposed  their  hypocritical  semblance  of  piety,  and 
justly  stripped  them  of  the  undeserved  esteem  in  which 
they  were  held  by  the  people.  He  has  absolutely  de- 
nounced the  precepts  which  they  invented  and  placed 
above  the  law.  He  even  desired  to  abolish  the  illegal 
taxes  which  they  had  imposed  upon  the  people.  Are 
not  all  these  more  than  sufficient  to  condemn  Him  in 
their  eyes  and  prove  Him  worthy  of  death? 

Can  a  more  favorable  verdict  be  expected  of  the 
members  of  the  second  chamber,  composed  as  it  was 
of  men  so  conceited  and  arrogant?  These  doctors  ex- 
pected a  Messiah  who  would  be  another  Solomon,  un- 

1  Matt.  vi.  2,  5,  l6;  ix.  II,  14;  xii.  2;  xxiii.  5,  15,  23;  Luke  v.  30;  vi. 
2,7;  xi.  39,  etc.;xviii.  12;  John  ix.  i6;"Perkeh  Avoth,"  or  "Sentences  of 
the  Fathers,"  I.  16;  Jos.,  "Ant.,"  XVII.  II.  4;  XVIII.  I.  3;  "Vita,"  38; 
"Talmud,"  Bab.,  "  Sotah,"  fol.  22,  recto. 


CHARACTERS   OF   THE    SANHEDRISTS     325 

der  whose  reign  and  with  whose  aid  they  would  estab- 
lish at  Jerusalem  an  academy  of  learning  that  would 
attract  all  the  kings,  even  as  the  Queen  of  Sheba  was 
attracted  to  the  court  of  the  wisest  king  of  Israel.  But 
this  Jesus,  who  claims  to  be  the  Messiah,  has  the  bold- 
ness to  declare  blessed  those  who  are  humble  in  spirit. 
His  disciples  are  but  ignorant  fishermen,  chosen  from 
the  least  of  the  tribes;  his  speech  of  a  provoking  sim- 
plicity, condemning  before  the  multitude  the  haughty 
and  pretentious  language  of  the  doctors.  Are  not  these 
things  sufficient  to  bring  down  upon  him  their  con- 
demnation? 

And  what  justice  can  we  expect,  in  fine,  from  the 
third  chamber,  when  we  remember  that  most  of  its 
members  were  depraved  Sadducees,  caring  only  for  the 
enjoyment  of  the  things  of  this  world,  heedless  of  the 
welfare  of  the  soul,  almost  denying  the  existence  of 
God,  and  disbelieving  in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead? 
According  to  their  views,  the  mission  of  the  Messiah 
was  not  to  consist  in  the  regenerating  of  Israel  as  well 
as  of  the  whole  human  race,  but  in  the  making  of 
Jerusalem  the  center  of  riches  and  worldly  goods, 
which  would  be  brought  hither  by  the  conquered  and 
humbled  Gentiles,  who  were  to  become  the  slaves  of 
the  Israelites.  But  the  man  upon  whom  they  are  called 
to  pass  judgment,  far  from  attaching  great  importance 
to  wealth  and  dignity,  as  did  they,  prescribes  to  his 
disciples  the  renunciation  of  riches  and  honors.  He 
even  despises  those  things  which  the  Sadducees  esteem 
most — viz.,  pedigree,  silk  attire,  cups  of  gold,  and 
sumptuous  repast.    What  could  have  rendered  his  con- 


326  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

demnation  surer  than  such  manifestations  of  contempt 
for  the  pride  and  voluptuousness  of  these  men? 

To  limit  our  inquiry  to  the  moral  characters  of  the 
judges  alone,  the  issue  of  the  trial  can  be  but  fatal  to 
the  accused;  and  so,  when  the  three  chambers  consti- 
tuting the  Sanhedrin  council  had  entered  into  session, 
we  can  well  imagine  that  there  was  no  hope  for  the 
acquittal  of  Jesus;  for  are  not  all  the  high  priests,  as 
well  as  the  majority  of  the  scribes  and  ancients,  against 
him?^ 

^  "  From  that  time  forth  began  Jesus  to  show  unto  his  disciples,  how 
that  he  must  go  unto  Jerusalem,  and  suffer  many  things  of  the  elders 
and  chief  priests  and  scribes."     (Matt.  xvi.  21.) 


APPENDIX    II 


ACTS  OF  PILATE 


HE  apocryphal  Acts  of  Pilate 
are  herewith  given  under  Ap- 
pendix 11.  The  authenticity  of 
these  writings  has  never  been 
finally  settled  by  the  scholarship 
of  the  world.  It  is  safe  to 
say,  however,  that  the  current 
of  modern  criticism  is  decidedly 
against  their  genuineness.  Nev- 
ertheless, the  following  facts  seem  to  be  very  generally 
conceded  by  the  critics:  That  there  are  now  in  exist- 
ence certain  ancient  documents  called  the  "  Acts  of 
Pilate  ";  that  they  were  probably  discovered  at  Turin, 
in  northern  Italy,  and  were  first  used  by  the 
noted  New  Testament  palaeographer.  Dr.  Constantine 
Tischendorf,  who  studied  them  in  company  with  the 
celebrated  orientalist,  Victor  Amadee  Peyron,  pro- 
fessor of  oriental  languages  in  the  University  of  Turin; 
and,  furthermore,  that  these  documents  that  we  now 
have  are  approximately  accurate  copies  of  the  docu- 
ment mentioned  by  Justin  Martyr  about  the  year  138 
A.D.,  and  by  Tertullian  about  the  year  200  A.D. 

But,  admitting  all  these  things,  the  question  of  genu- 
ineness and  authenticity  still  remains  to  be  settled.  Was 
the  document  referred  to  by  Justin  as  the  "  Acts  of 

3*7 


328  THE    TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

Pilate,"  and  again  as  the  "  Acts  recorded  under  Pon- 
tius Pilate,"  a  genuine  manuscript,  written  by  or  com- 
posed under  the  direction  of  Pilate,  or  was  it  a  "  pious 
fraud  of  some  Christian,"  who  gathered  his  prophecies 
from  the  Old,  and  his  facts  from  the  New  Testament, 
and  then  embellished  both  with  his  imagination? 

The  subject  is  too  vast  and  the  space  at  our  disposal 
is  too  limited  to  permit  a  discussion  of  the  authenticity 
of  the  Acts  of  Pilate.  We  have  deemed  it  sufficient 
to  insert  under  Appendix  II  lengthy  extracts  from  the 
writings  of  Tischendorf  and  Lardner,  two  of  the  most 
celebrated  biblical  critics,  relating  to  the  genuineness 
of  these  Acts.  The  reader  would  do  well  to  peruse 
these  extracts  carefully  before  reading  the  Acts  of 
Pilate. 

Lardner's  Remarks  on  the  Acts  of  Pilate 

The  Acts  of  Pontius  Pilate,  and  his  letter  to  Tiberius 

"  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  first  Apology,  which  was 
presented  to  the  emperor  Antoninus  Pius,  and  the 
Senate  of  Rome,  about  the  year  140,  having  mentioned 
our  Savior's  crucifixion  and  some  of  the  circumstances 
of  it,  adds:  'And  that  these  things  were  so  done  you 
may  know  from  the  Acts  made  in  the  time  of  Pontius 
Pilate.' 

"  Afterwards  in  the  same  Apology,  having  mentioned 
some  of  our  Lord's  miracles,  such  as  healing  diseases 
and  raising  the  dead,  he  adds:  '  And  that  these  things 
were  done  by  him  you  may  know  from  the  Acts  made 
in  the  time  of  Pontius  Pilate.' 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  329 

**  Tertullian,  in  his  Apology,  about  the  year  200, 
having  spoken  of  our  Savior's  crucifixion  and  resur- 
rection, and  his  appearance  to  his  disciples,  who  were 
ordained  by  him  to  preach  the  gospel  over  the  world, 
goes  on :  '  Of  all  these  things,  relating  to  Christ,  Pilate, 
in  his  conscience  a  Christian,  sent  an  account  to  Tibe- 
rius, then  emperor.' 

"  In  another  chapter  or  section  of  his  Apology, 
nearer  the  beginning,  he  speaks  to  this  purpose: '  There 
was  an  ancient  decree  that  no  one  should  be  received 
for  a  deity  unless  he  was  first  approved  by  the  senate. 
Tiberius,  in  whose  time  the  Christian  religion  had  its 
rise,  having  received  from  Palestine  in  Syria  an  account 
of  such  things  as  manifested  our  Savior's  divinity,  pro- 
posed to  the  senate,  and  giving  his  own  vote  as  first  in 
his  favor,  that  he  should  be  placed  among  the  gods. 
The  senate  refused,  because  he  himself  had  declined 
that  honor.' 

"  '  Nevertheless  the  emperor  persisted  in  his  own 
opinion,  and  ordered  that  if  any  accused  the  Christians 
they  should  be  punished.'  And  then  adds:  'Search,' 
says  he,  '  your  own  writings,  and  you  will  there  find 
that  Nero  was  the  first  emperor  who  exercised  any  acts 
of  severity  toward  the  Christians,  because  they  were 
then  very  numerous  at  Rome.' 

"  It  is  fit  that  we  should  now  observe  what  notice 
Eusebius  takes  of  these  things  in  his  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory. It  is  to  this  effect:  '  When  the  wonderful  resur- 
rection of  our  Savior,  and  his  ascension  to  heaven,  were 
in  the  mouths  of  all  men,  it  being  an  ancient  custom 
for  the  governors  of  provinces  to  write  the  emperor, 


330  THE    TRIAL    OF    JESUS 

and  give  him  an  account  of  new  and  remarkable  oc- 
currences, that  he  might  not  be  ignorant  of  anything; 
our  Savior's  resurrection  being  much  talked  of  through- 
out all  of  Palestine,  Pilate  informed  the  emperor  of  it, 
as  likewise  of  his  miracles,  which  he  had  heard  of,  and 
that  being  raised  up  after  he  had  been  put  to  death, 
he  was  already  believed  by  many  to  be  a  god.  And 
it  is  said  that  Tiberius  referred  the  matter  to  the  sen- 
ate, but  that  they  refused  their  consent,  under  a  pre- 
tence that  it  had  not  been  first  approved  of  by  them; 
there  being  an  ancient  law  that  no  one  should  be  deified 
among  the  Romans  without  an  order  of  the  senate; 
but,  indeed,  because  the  saving  and  divine  doctrine  of 
the  gospel  needed  not  to  be  confirmed  by  human  judg- 
ment and  authority.  However,  Tiberius  persisted  in 
his  former  sentiment,  and  allowed  not  anything  to  be 
done  that  was  prejudicial  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ. 
These  things  are  related  by  Tertullian,  a  man  famous 
on  other  accounts,  and  particularly  for  his  skill  in  the 
Roman  laws.  I  say  he  speaks  thus  in  his  Apology  for 
the  Christians,  written  by  him  in  the  Roman  tongue, 
but  since  (in  the  days  of  Eusebius)  translated  into  the 
Greek.'  His  words  are  these:  *  There  was  an  ancient 
decree  that  no  one  should  be  consecrated  as  a  deity  by 
the  emperor,  unless  he  was  first  approved  of  by  the 
senate.  Marcus  Aemilius  knows  this  by  his  god  Al- 
burnus.  This  is  to  our  purpose,  forasmuch  as  among 
you  divinity  is  bestowed  by  human  judgment.' 

"  And  if  God  does  not  please  man,  he  shall  not  be 
God.  And,  according  to  this  way  of  thinking,  man 
must  be  propitious  to  God.     Tiberius,   therefore,   in 


ACTS    OF   PILATE  331 

whose  time  the  Christian  name  was  first  known  in  the 
world,  having  received  an  account  of  this  doctrine  out 
of  Palestine,  where  it  began,  communicated  that  ac- 
count to  the  senate ;  giving  his  own  suffrage  at  the  same 
time  in  favor  of  it.  But  the  senate  rejected  it,  because 
it  had  not  been  approved  by  themselves.  *  Neverthe- 
less the  emperor  persisted  in  his  judgment,  and  threat- 
ened death  to  such  as  should  accuse  the  Christians.' 
*  Which,'  adds  Eusebius,  *  could  not  be  other  than  the 
disposal  of  Divine  Providence,  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  gospel,  which  was  then  in  its  beginning,  might  be 
preached  all  over  the  world  without  molestation.'  So 
Eusebius. 

"  Divers  exceptions  have  been  made  by  learned  mod- 
erns to  the  original  testimonies  of  Justin  Martyr  and 
Tertullian.  '  Is  there  any  likelihood,'  say  they,  '  that 
Pilate  should  write  such  things  to  Tiberius  concerning 
a  man  whom  he  had  condemned  to  death?  And  if 
he  had  written  them,  is  it  probable  that  Tiberius  should 
propose  to  the  senate  to  have  a  man  put  among  the 
gods  upon  the  bare  relation  of  a  governor  of  a  prov- 
ince? And  if  he  had  proposed  it,  who  can  make  a 
doubt  that  the  senate  would  not  have  immediately  com- 
plied? So  that  though  we  dare  not  say  that  this  nar- 
ration is  absolutely  false,  yet  it  must  be  reckoned  as 
doubtful.'    So  says  Du  Pin. 

"  These  and  other  difficulties  shall  now  be  consid- 
ered, r 

"  Now,  therefore,  I  shall  mention  some  observations: 

"  In  the  first  place,  I  shall  observe  that  Justin  Mar- 
tyr and  Tertullian  are  early  writers  of  good  repute. 


232  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

That  is  an  observation  of  Bishop  Pearson.  These  tes- 
timonies are  taken  from  the  most  public  writings,  Apol- 
ogies for  the  Christian  religion,  presented,  or  at  least 
proposed  and  recommended  to  the  emperor  and  senate 
of  Rome,  or  to  magistrates  of  high  authority  and  great 
distinction  in  the  Roman  empire. 

Secondly:  It  certainly  was  the  custom  of  governors 
of  provinces  to  compose  Acts  or  memoirs  or  commenta- 
ries of  the  remarkable  occurrences  in  the  places  where 
they  presided. 

In  the  time  of  the  first  Roman  emperors  there  were 
Acts  of  the  Senate,  Acts  of  the  City,  or  People  of 
Rome,  Acts  of  other  cities,  and  Acts  of  governors  of 
provinces.  Of  all  these  we  can  discern  clear  proofs 
and  frequent  mention  in  ancient  writers  of  the  best 
credit.  Julius  Caesar  ordered  that  Acts  of  the  Senate, 
as  well  as  daily  Acts  of  the  People,  should  be  pub- 
lished.   See  Sueton.  Jul.  Caes.  c.  xx. 

"  Augustus  forbade  publishing  Acts  of  the  Senate. 

"  There  was  an  officer,  himself  a  senator,  whose  prov- 
ince it  was  to  compose  those  Acts. 

"  The  Acts  of  the  Senate  must  have  been  large  and 
voluminous,  containing  not  only  the  question  pro- 
posed, or  referred  to  the  senate  by  the  consul,  or  the 
emperor,  but  also  the  debates  and  speeches  of  the 
senators. 

"  The  Acts  of  the  People,  or  City,  were  journals  or 
registers  of  remarkable  births,  marriages,  divorces, 
deaths,  proceedings  in  courts  of  judicature,  and  other 
interesting  affairs,  and  some  other  things  below  the 
dignity  of  history. 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  333 

*'  To  these  Acts  of  each  kind  Roman  authors  fre- 
quently had  recourse  for  information. 

"  There  were  such  Acts  or  registers  at  other  places 
besides  Rome,  particularly  at  Antium.  From  them 
Suetonius  learned  the  day  and  place  of  the  birth  of 
Caligula,  about  which  were  other  uncertain  reports. 
And  he  speaks  of  those  Acts  as  public  authorities,  and 
therefore  more  decisive  and  satisfactory  than  some 
other  accounts. 

"  There  were  also  Acts  of  the  governors  of  provinces, 
registering  all  remarkable  transactions  and  occurrences. 

"  Justin  Martyr  and  Tertullian  could  not  be  mis- 
taken about  this;  and  the  learned  bishop  of  Caesarea 
admits  the  truth  of  what  they  say.  And  in  the  time 
of  the  persecuting  emperor  Maximin,  about  the  year 
of  Christ  307,  the  heathen  people  forged  Acts  of  Pilate, 
derogatory  to  the  honor  of  our  Savior,  which  were  dili- 
gently spread  abroad,  to  unsettle  Christians,  or  discour- 
age them  in  the  profession  of  their  faith.  Of  this  we 
are  informed  by  Eusebius  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History. 

Thirdly:  It  was  customary  for  the  governors  of  prov- 
inces to  send  to  the  emperor  an  account  of  remarkable 
transactions  in  places  where  they  presided. 

"  So  thought  the  learned  Eusebius,  as  we  have  seen. 

"  And  Pliny's  letters  to  Trajan,  still  extant,  are  a 
proof  of  it.  Philo  speaks  of  the  Acts  or  Memoirs  of 
Alexandria  sent  to  Caligula,  which  that  emperor  read 
with  more  eagerness  and  satisfaction  than  anything  else. 

"  Fourthly:  It  has  been  said  to  be  very  unlikely  that 
Pilate  should  write  such  things  to  Tiberius,  concerning 
a  man  whom  he  [Pilate]  had  condemned  to  death. 


334  THE   TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

"  To  which  it  is  easy  to  reply,  that  if  he  wrote  to 
Tiberius  at  all,  it  is  very  likely  that  he  should  speak 
favorably  and  honorably  of  the  Savior. 

*'  That  Pilate  passed  sentence  of  condemnation  upon 
our  Lord  very  unwillingly,  and  not  without  a  sort  of 
compulsion,  appears  from  the  history  of  the  Evangelist: 
Matt,  xxvii. ;  Mark  xv. ;  Luke  xxiii. ;  John  xviii.  Pi- 
late was  hard  pressed.  The  rulers  of  the  Jews  vehe- 
mently accused  our  Lord  to  him.  They  said  they  had 
found  him  perverting  the  nation,  and  forbidding  to 
give  tribute  to  Caesar,  saying  that  himself  is  Christ,  a 
king,  and  the  like;  and  all  without  effect  for  a  while. 

"  Pilate  still  sought  for  expedients  to  set  Jesus  at 
liberty. 

"  As  his  reluctance  had  been  very  manifest  and  pub- 
lic in  a  court  of  judicature,  in  the  chief  city  of  the 
nation  at  the  time  of  one  of  their  great  festivals,  it  is 
highly  probable  that  when  he  sent  to  Rome  he  should 
make  some  apology  for  his  conduct.  Nor  could  any- 
thing be  more  proper  than  to  allege  some  of  our  Sa- 
vior's miracles  which  he  had  heard  of,  and  to  give  an 
account  to  the  zeal  of  those  who  professed  faith  in  him 
after  his  ignominious  crucifixion,  and  openly  asserted 
that  he  had  risen  from  the  dead  and  ascended  to  heaven. 

"  Pilate  would  not  dare  in  such  a  report  to  write 
falsehood,  nor  to  conceal  the  most  material  circum- 
stances of  the  case  about  which  he  was  writing.  At 
the  trial  he  publicly  declared  his  innocence:  and  told 
the  Jews  several  times  *  that  he  found  no  fault  in  him 
at  all.' 

"  And  when  he  was  going  to  pronounce  the  sentence 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  335 

of  condemnation,  he  took  water  and  washed  his  hands 
before  the  multitude,  saying:  I  am  innocent  of  the 
blood  of  this  just  person:  'See  ye  to  it.'  Matt, 
xxvii.  24. 

"  When  he  wrote  to  Tiberius  he  would  very  natu- 
rally say  something  of  our  Lord's  wonderful  resurrec- 
tion and  ascension,  which  were  much  talked  of  and 
believed  by  many,  with  which  he  could  not  be  possibly 
unacquainted.  The  mention  of  these  things  would  be 
the  best  vindication  of  his  inward  persuasion,  and  his 
repeated  declarations  of  our  Lord's  innocence  upon 
trial  notwithstanding  the  loud  clamors  and  united  ac- 
cusations of  the  Jewish  people  and  their  rulers. 

''  Pilate,  as  has  been  said  several  times,  passed  con- 
demnation upon  Jesus  very  unwillingly,  and  not  until 
after  long  trial. 

"  When  he  passed  sentence  upon  him  he  gave 
orders  that  this  title  or  inscription  should  be  put 
upon  the  cross:  'Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  king  of  the 
Jews.' 

"  When  he  had  expired,  application  was  made  to 
Pilate,  by  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  an  honorable  counsel- 
lor, that  the  body  might  be  taken  down  and  buried. 
To  which  he  consented;  but  not  till  assurance  from  the 
centurion  that  he  had  been  sometime  dead.  The  next 
day  some  of  the  priests  and  pharisees  came  to  him,  say- 
ing: '  Sir,  we  remember  that  that  deceiver  said  while 
he  was  yet  alive.  After  three  days  I  will  rise  again. 
Command,  therefore,  that  the  sepulchre  be  made  sure, 
until  the  third  day,  lest  his  disciples  come  by  night 
and  steal  him  away,  and  say  unto  the  people.  He  is 


236  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

risen  from  the  dead.'    '  So  the  last  error  shall  be  worse 
than  the  first.' 

"  Pilate  said  unto  them:  '  Ye  have  a  watch;  go  your 
way,  make  it  sure  as  you  can.'  So  they  went  and  made 
the  sepulchre  sure,  sealing  the  stone  and  setting  a  watch. 

"  Whilst  they  were  at  the  sepulchre  there  was  a  '  great 
earthquake,'  the  stone  was  rolled  away  by  an  Angel, 
*  whose  countenance  was  like  lightning,  and  for  fear 
of  whom  the  guards  did  shake  and  become  as  dead 
men.'  Some  of  the  guards  went  down  into  the  City, 
and  showed  unto  the  chief  priests  all  the  things  that 
were  done. 

"  Nor  can  there  be  any  doubt  that  these  things  came 
also  to  the  governor's  ears.  Pilate,  therefore,  was  fur- 
nished with  materials  of  great  importance  relating  to 
this  case,  very  proper  to  be  sent  to  the  emperor.  And 
very  probably  he  did  send  them,  for  he  could  do  no 
otherwise. 

"Fifthly:  it  is  said,  'That  if  Pilate  had  sent  such 
things  to  Tiberius,  it  is  nevertheless  very  unlikely  that 
Tiberias  should  propose  to  the  senate  that  our  Savior 
might  be  put  among  the  gods,  because  that  emperor 
had  little  or  no  regard  for  things  of  religion.' 

"  But  it  is  easy  to  answer  that  such  observations  are 
of  little  or  no  importance.  Few  princes  are  able  to 
preserve  uniformity  in  the  whole  of  their  conduct,  and 
it  is  certain  that  Tiberius  varied  from  himself  upon 
many  occasions  and  in  different  parts  of  his  life. 

"Sixthly:  it  is  further  urged,  that  if  Tiberius  had 
proposed  the  thing  to  the  senate,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  senate  would  have  immediately  complied. 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  337 

"But  neither  is  this  difficulty  insuperable;  for  we 
are  assured  by  Suetonius  that  Tiberius  let  several  things 
be  decided  by  the  senate  contrary  to  his  own  opinion, 
without  showing  much  uneasiness. 

(It  must  be  observed  here  that  Dr.  Lardner  is  very 
copious  in  quotations  from  the  best  authorities  in  proof 
of  all  his  statements.  The  reader  is  referred  to  Vol.  VI 
of  his  great  works,  pages  605-620,  where  will  be  found 
these  quotations  in  foot-notes  too  lengthy  to  be  tran- 
scribed here.) 

"  Seventhly:  The  right  interpretation  of  the  words 
of  TertuUian  will  be  of  use  to  remove  difficulties  and 
to  confirm  the  truth  of  the  account. 

"I  have  translated  them  in  this  manner:  'When 
Tiberius  referred  the  matter  to  the  senate,  that  our 
Lord  should  be  placed  in  the  number  of  gods,  the 
senate  refused,  because  he  had  himself  declined  that 
honor.' 

"  The  words  are  understood  to  the  like  purpose  by 
Pearson. 

"  There  is  another  sense,  which  is  that  of  the  Greek 
translation  of  Tertullian's  Apology,  made  use  of  by 
Eusebius:  'The  senate  refused  because  it  had  not  it- 
self approved  of  it.'  But  that  sense,  if  it  be  any  sense 
at  all,  is  absurd,  and  therefore  unlikely.  If  none  be- 
side the  senate  had  a  right  to  consecrate  any  for  the 
deity,  yet  certainly  the  consul  or  the  emperor  might 
refer  such  a  thing  to  that  venerable  body.  According 
to  Tertullian's  account,  the  whole  is  in  a  fair  way  of 
legal  proceeding."  [And  it  may  be  remarked  here  that 
TertuUian,  being  well  versed  in  Roman  law,  would 


338  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

hardly  have  passed  by  a  blunder  here  or  committed  one 
in  anything  wherein  he  may  have  had  to  do  with  the 
statement.] 

"  By  virtue  of  an  ancient  law,  no  one  might  be  reck- 
oned a  god  (at  least  by  the  Romans)  without  the  ap- 
probation of  the  senate.  Tiberius  having  been  in- 
formed of  some  extraordinary  things  concerning  Jesus, 
referred  it  to  the  senate,  that  he  also  might  be  placed 
in  the  number  of  deities.  Was  it  possible  after  this 
that  the  senate  should  refuse  it,  under  a  pretense  that 
Tiberius  had  bestowed  divinity  upon  Jesus  without 
their  consent,  when  he  had  done  no  such  thing,  and 
at  the  very  time  was  referring  it  to  their  judgment  in 
the  old  legal  way? 

"  Le  Clerc  objects  that  the  true  reading  in  Tertul- 
lian  is  not — Non  quia  in  se  non  probaverat,  but  quia 
non  ipse  probaverat. 

"  Be  it  so.  The  meaning  is  the  same.  Ipse  must 
intend  the  emperor,  not  the  senate.  The  other  sense 
is  absurd,  and  next  to  a  contradiction,  and  therefore 
not  likely  to  be  right,  and  at  the  same  time  it  is  a  rude 
and  needless  affront.  The  other  interpretation  repre- 
sents a  handsome  compliment,  not  without  foundation. 
For  it  is  very  true  that  Tiberius  had  himself  declined 
receiving  divine  honors. 

**  Eighthly:  It  has  been  objected  that  Tiberius  was 
unfriendly  to  the  Jewish  people,  and  therefore  it  must 
be  reckoned  very  improbable  that  he  should  be  willing 
to  put  a  man  who  was  a  Jew  among  the  gods. 
'  "  But  there  is  little  or  no  ground  for  this  objection. 
It  was  obviated  long  ago  in  the  first  part  of  this  work. 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  339 

where  beside  other  things  it  is  said:  In  the  reign  of 
Tiberius  the  Jewish  people  were  well  used.  They  were 
indeed  banished  out  of  Italy  by  an  edict;  but  it  was 
for  a  misdemeanor  committed  by  some  villains  of  that 
nation.  The  great  hardship  was  that  many  innocent 
persons  suffered  beside  the  guilty. 

"  Upon  other  occasions  Tiberius  showed  the  Jews  all 
the  favor  that  could  be  desired,  especially  after  the 
death  of  Sejanus;  and  is  much  applauded  for  it  by 
Philo. 

"Ninthly:  Still  it  is  urged,  'Nothing  can  be  more 
absurd  than  to  suppose  that  Tiberius  would  receive  for 
a  deity  a  man  who  taught  the  worship  of  one  God  only, 
and  whose  religion  decried  all  other  deities  as  mere 
fiction.' 

"  Upon  which  I  must  say,  nothing  can  be  more  ab- 
surd than  this  objection.  Tertullian  does  not  suppose 
Tiberius  to  be  well  acquainted  with  the  Christian  re- 
ligion, our  Savior's  doctrine. 

"  All  he  says  is,  that,  having  heard  of  some  extraor- 
dinary things  concerning  him,  he  had  a  desire  to  put 
him  among  the  Roman  deities. 

"Tenthly:  Tertullian  proceeds:  'Nevertheless  the 
emperor  persisted  in  his  opinion,  and  ordered  that  if 
any  accused  the  Christians  they  should  be  punished.' 
This  was  very  natural.  Though  the  senate  would  not 
put  Jesus  in  the  number  of  deities,  the  emperor  was 
still  of  opinion  that  it  might  have  been  done. 

"  And  he  determined  to  provide  by  an  edict  for  the 
safety  of  those  who  professed  a  high  regard  for  Jesus 
Christ.    Which  edict,  as  Eusebius  reasonably  supposes, 


340  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

was  of  use  for  securing  the  free  preaching  of  the  gospel 
in  many  places. 

"  But  the  authority  of  that  edict  would  cease  at  the 
emperor's  demise,  if  not  sooner.  Unfortunately,  it 
could  not  be  in  force,  or  have  any  great  effect,  for  a 
long  season. 

"  Nor  need  we  consider  the  ordering  such  an  edict 
as  in  favor  of  the  Christians  as  an  incredible  thing, 
if  we  observe  what  Philo  says,  who  assures  us  that 
*  Tiberius  gave  orders  to  all  the  governors  of  prov- 
inces, to  protect  the  Jews  in  the  cities  where  they  lived 
in  the  observation  of  their  own  rights  and  customs; 
and  that  they  should  bear  hard  on  none  of  them,  but 
such  as  were  unpeaceable  and  transgressed  the  laws  of 
the  State.' 

"  Nor  is  it  impossible  that  the  Christians  should  par- 
take of  the  like  civilities,  they  being  considered  as  a 
sect  of  the  Jews.  And  it  is  allowed  that  the  Roman 
empire  did  not  openly  persecute  the  Christians,  till  they 
became  so  numerous  that  the  heathen  people  were  ap- 
prehensive of  the  total  overthrow  of  their  religion. 

"  In  the  eleventh  place,  says  a  learned  and  judicious 
writer,  *  It  is  probable  that  Pilate,  who  had  no  enmity 
toward  Christ,  and  accounted  him  a  man  unjustly  ac- 
cused and  an  extraordinary  person,  might  be  moved 
by  the  wonderful  circumstances  attending  and  follow- 
ing his  death,  to  hold  him  in  veneration,  and  perhaps 
to  think  him  a  hero  and  the  son  of  some  deity.  It  is 
possible  that  he  might  send  a  narrative,  such  as  he 
thought  most  convenient,  of  these  transactions  to  Tibe- 
rius: but  it  is  not  at  all  likely  that  Tiberius  proposed 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  341 

to  the  senate  that  Christ  should  be  deified,  and  that 
the  senate  rejected  it,  and  that  Tiberius  continued  fa- 
vorably disposed  toward  Christ,  and  that  he  threatened 
to  punish  those  who  should  molest  and  accuse  the  Chris- 
tians.' '  Observe  also,'  says  the  same  learned  writer, 
*  that  the  Jews  persecuted  the  apostles,  and  slew  Ste- 
phen, and  that  Saul  made  havoc  of  the  church,  entering 
into  every  house,  and  hailing  men  and  women,  com- 
mitting them  to  prison,  and  that  Pilate  connived  at  all 
this  violence,  and  was  not  afraid  of  the  resentment  of 
Tiberius  on  that  account.' 

*'  Admitting  the  truth  of  all  these  particulars  just 
mentioned,  it  does  not  follow  that  no  orders  were 
given  by  Tiberius  for  the  protection  of  the  followers 
of  Jesus. 

"  For  no  commands  of  princes  are  obeyed  by  all  men 
everywhere.    They  are  oftentimes  transgressed. 

"  Nor  was  any  place  more  likely  than  Judea,  where 
the  enmity  of  many  against  the  disciples  of  Jesus  was 
so  great.  Nor  need  it  be  supposed  that  Tiberius  was 
very  intent  to  have  this  order  strictly  regarded.  For 
he  was  upon  many  occasions  very  indolent  and  dila- 
tory; and  he  was  well  known  to  be  so.  Moreover,  the 
death  of  Stephen  was  tumultuous,  and  not  an  act  of  the 
Jewish  council.  And  further,  the  influence  of  Pilate 
in  that  country  was  not  now  at  its  full  height.  We 
perceive  from  the  history  of  our  Lord's  trial  before 
him,  as  recorded  in  the  gospels,  that  he  stood  in  fear 
of  the  Jews. 

"  He  was  apprehensive  that,  if  he  did  not  gratify 
them  in  that  point,  they  might  draw  up  a  long  list  of 


342  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

maladministrations  for  the  emperor's  view.  His  con- 
demnation of  Jesus  at  the  importunity  of  the  Jews,  con- 
trary to  his  own  judgment  and  inclination,  declared  to 
them  more  than  once,  was  a  point  gained;  and  his  gov- 
ernment must  have  been  ever  after  much  weakened  by 
so  mean  a  condescension.  And  that  Pilate's  influence 
in  the  province  continued  to  decline  is  manifest,  in  that 
the  people  of  it  prevailed  at  last  to  have  him  removed 
in  a  very  ignominious  manner  by  Vitellius,  president 
of  Syria. 

"  Pilate  was  removed  from  his  government  before  the 
Passover  in  the  year  of  Christ  36.  After  which  there 
was  no  procurator  or  other  person  with  the  power  of 
life  and  death,  in  Judea,  before  the  ascension  of  Herod 
Agrippa,  in  the  year  41. 

"  In  that  space  of  time  the  Jews  would  take  an  un- 
usual license,  and  gratify  their  own  malicious  dispo- 
sitions, beyond  what  they  could  otherwise  have  done, 
without  control. 

"  Twelfth :  Some  have  objected  that  Tertullian  is  so 
absurd  as  to  speak  of  Christians  in  the  time  of  Tiberius; 
though  it  be  certain  that  the  followers  of  Jesus  were 
not  known  by  that  denomination  till  some  time  after- 
wards. 

"  But  this  is  a  trifling  objection.  Tertullian  intends 
no  more  by  Christians  than  followers  of  Jesus,  by  what- 
ever name  they  were  known  or  distinguished;  whether 
that  of  Nazarenes,  or  Galileans,  or  disciples. 

"  And  it  is  undoubted,  that  the  Christian  religion 
had  its  rise  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius;  though  they  who 
professed  to  believe  in  Jesus,  as  risen  from  the  dead 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  343 

and  ascended  to  heaven,  were  not  called  Christians  till 
some  time  afterwards. 

"  So  at  the  beginning  of  the  paragraph  he  says, 
'  There  was  an  ancient  law  that  no  god  should  be 
consecrated  by  the  emperor,  unless  it  was  first  approved 
by  the  senate.'  Nevertheless,  Tertullian  was  not  so 
ignorant  as  not  to  know  that  there  were  not  any  em- 
perors when  the  ancient  decree  was  passed. 

"  His  meaning  is,  that  no  one  should  be  deified  by 
any  man,  no,  not  by  a  consul  or  emperor,  without  the 
approbation  of  the  senate. 

"  Finally:  We  do  not  suppose  that  Tiberius  under- 
stood the  doctrine  of  the  Savior,  or  that  he  was  at  all 
inclined  to  be  a  Christian. 

"  Nor  did  Tertullian  intend  to  say  any  such  thing, 
for  immediately  after  the  passage  first  cited  from  him, 
he  adds:  '  But  the  Caesars  themselves  would  have  be- 
lieved in  Jesus  Christ,  if  they  had  not  been  necessary 
for  the  world,  or  if  Christians  could  have  been  Caesars.' 

"  Grotius  appears  to  have  rightly  understood  the  im- 
portance of  these  passages  of  Tertullian;  whose  note 
upon  Matthew  xxiv.  2, 1  have  transcribed  below."  The 
reader  is  referred  to  Vol.  VI.  of  Lardner's  Works, 
where  he  will  find  the  notes  of  this  learned  writer,  as 
quoted  from  various  ancients  and  moderns,  in  proof  of 
all  he  has  brought  forward  in  these  lengthy  arguments, 
and  which  cannot  be  transcribed  here.  ^ 

"  Admit,  then,  the  right  interpretation  of  Tertullian, 
and  it  may  be  allowed  that  what  he  says  is  not  in- 
credible or  improbable.  The  Romans  had  almost 
innumerable  deities,  and  yet  they  frequently  added  to 


344  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

that  number  and  adopted  new.  As  deifications  were 
very  frequent,  Tiberius  might  have  indulged  a  thought 
of  placing  Jesus  among  the  established  deities  without 
intending  to  derogate  from  the  worship  or  honor  of 
those  who  were  already  received. 

"  But  the  senate  was  not  in  a  humor  to  gratify  him. 

"  And  the  reason  assigned  is,  because  the  emperor 
himself  had  declined  that  honor,  which  is  so  plausible 
a  pretense,  and  so  fine  a  compliment,  that  we  cannot 
easily  suppose  it  to  be  Tertullian's  own  invention; 
which,  therefore,  gives  credibility  to  his  account. 

*'  Eusebius,  though  he  acknowledged  the  overruling 
providence  of  God  in  the  favorable  disposition  of  Ti- 
berius toward  the  first  followers  of  Jesus,  by  which 
means  the  Christian  religion  in  its  infancy  was  propa- 
gated over  the  world  with  less  molestation,  does  also 
say,  at  the  beginning  of  the  chapter  quoted,  '  The  sen- 
ate refused  their  consent  to  the  emperor's  proposal,  un- 
der a  pretence  that  they  had  not  been  first  asked,  there 
being  an  ancient  law,  that  no  one  should  be  deified 
without  the  approbation  of  the  senate;  but,  indeed,' 
adds  he,  *  because  the  saving  and  divine  doctrine  of 
the  gospel  needed  not  to  be  ratified  by  human  judg- 
ment and  authority.' 

Chrysostom's  observation  is  to  like  purpose,  but  with 
some  inaccuracies.  It  is  likely  that  he  was  not  at  all 
acquainted  with  Tertullian;  and  he  was  no  admirer  of 
Eusebius.  Perhaps  he  builds  upon  general  tradition 
only.  '  The  Roman  senate,'  says  he,  '  had  the  power  of 
nominating  and  decreeing  who  should  be  gods.  When, 
therefore,  all  things  concerning  Christ  had  been  pub- 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  345 

lished,  he  who  was  the  governor  of  the  Jewish  nation 
sent  to  them  to  know  if  they  would  be  pleased  to  ap- 
point him  also  to  be  a  god.  But  they  refused,  being 
offended  and  provoked,  that  before  their  decree  and 
judgment  had  been  obtained,  the  power  of  the  crucified 
one  had  shined  out  and  had  attracted  all  the  world  to 
the  worship  of  him.  But,  by  the  overruling  providence 
of  God,  this  was  brought  to  pass  against  their  will, 
that  the  divinity  of  Christ  might  not  be  established  by 
human  appointment  and  that  he  might  not  be  reck- 
oned one  of  the  many  who  were  deified  by  them.' 

"  Some  of  which,  as  he  proceeds  to  show,  had  been 
of  infamous  characters. 

"  I  shall  now  transcribe  below  in  his  own  words  what 
Orosius,  in  the  fifth  century,  says  of  this  matter,  that 
all  my  readers  may  have  it  at  once  before  them  without 
looking  farther  for  it."  This  quotation  from  Orosius 
will  be  found  in  the  "  Testimony  of  the  Fathers,"  un- 
der the  title,  "  Testimony  of  Orosius." 

"  And  I  refer  to  Zonoras  and  Nicephoras.  The  for- 
mer only  quotes  Eusebius,  and  transcribes  into  his  An- 
nals the  chapter  of  his  Ecclesiastical  History  quoted 
by  me.    Nor  has  Nicephoras  done  much  more."  ^ 

Tischendorf's   Comments    on  the    Acts    of 

Pilate 

"  It  is  the  same  with  the  second  apocryphal  work 
brought  under  review  above,  the  so-called  Acts  of  Pi- 

^  "  The  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History,"  in  the  chapter  on   "  Testi- 
monies of  Ancient  Heathens,"  vol.  vi.  p.  605  et  seq. 


346  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

late,  only  with  the  difference  that  they  refer  as  much 
to  John  as  to  the  synoptical  Gospels.  Justin,  in  like 
manner  as  before,  is  the  most  ancient  voucher  for  this 
work,  which  is  said  to  have  been  written  under  Pilate's 
jurisdiction,  and  by  reason  of  its  specification  of  won- 
derful occurrences  before,  during,  and  after  the  cruci- 
fixion, to  have  borne  strong  evidence  to  the  divinity 
of  Christ.  Justin  saw  as  little  reason  as  Tertullian  and 
others  for  believing  that  it  was  a  work  of  pious  decep- 
tion from  a  Christian  hand."  [As  has  been  alleged  by 
opponents.]  "  On  the  contrary,  Justin  appeals  to  it 
twice  in  his  first  Apology  in  order  to  confirm  the  ac- 
counts of  the  occurrences  which  took  place  at  the  cruci- 
fixion in  accordance  with  prophecy,  and  of  the  miracu- 
lous healings  effected  by  Christ,  also  the  subject  of 
prophetic  announcement.  He  cites  specifically  (chap. 
35)  from  Isaiah  Ixv.  2,  and  Iviii.  2:  'I  have  spread 
out  my  hands  all  the  day  unto  a  rebellious  people 
which  walketh  in  a  way  that  was  not  good.  They  ask 
of  me  the  ordinances  of  justice,  they  take  delight  in 
approaching  to  God.'  Further,  from  the  22d  Psalm: 
'  They  pierced  my  hands  and  my  feet;  they  parted  my 
garments  upon  them  and  cast  lots  upon  my  vesture.' 
With  reference  to  this  he  remarks  that  Christ  fulfilled 
this;  that  he  did  stretch  forth  his  hands  when  the  Jews 
crucified  him — the  men  who  contended  against  him 
and  denied  that  he  was  Christ.  '  Then,'  he  says  further, 
*  as  the  prophet  foretold,  they  dragged  him  to  the  judg- 
ment seat,  set  him  upon  it  and  said,  Judge  us.'  The 
expression,  however,  '  they  pierced,'  etc.,  refers  to  the 
nails  with  which  they  fastened  his  feet  and  hands  to  the 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  347 

cross.  And  after  they  had  crucified  him  they  threw 
lots  for  his  clothing,  and  they  who  had  taken  part  in 
the  act  of  crucifixion  divided  it  among  themselves.  To 
this  he  adds:  And  you  can  learn  from  the  Acts,  com- 
posed during  the  governorship  of  Pontius  Pilate,  that 
these  things  really  happened. 

"  Still  more  explicit  is  the  testimony  of  Tertullian. 
It  may  be  found  in  Apologeticus  (chap.  2)  where  he 
says  that  out  of  envy  Jesus  was  surrendered  to  Pilate 
by  the  Jewish  ceremonial  lawyers,  and  by  him,  after  he 
had  yielded  to  the  cries  of  the  people,  given  over  for 
crucifixion;  that  while  hanging  on  the  cross  he  gave 
up  the  ghost  with  a  loud  cry,  and  so  anticipated  the 
executioner's  duty;  that  at  that  same  hour  the  day  was 
interrupted  by  a  sudden  darkness;  that  a  guard  of  sol- 
diers was  set  at  the  grave  for  the  purpose  of  preventing 
his  disciples  stealing  his  body,  since  he  had  predicted 
his  resurrection,  but  that  on  the  third  day  the  ground 
was  suddenly  shaken  and  the  stone  rolled  away  from 
before  the  sepulchre;  that  in  the  grave  nothing  was 
found  but  the  articles  used  in  his  burial;  that  the  re- 
port was  spread  abroad  by  those  who  stood  outside  that 
the  disciples  had  taken  the  body  away;  that  Jesus  spent 
forty  days  with  them  in  Galilee,  teaching  them  what 
their  mission  should  be,  and  that  after  giving  them  their 
instructions  as  to  what  they  should  preach,  he  was 
raised  in  a  cloud  to  heaven.  Tertullian  closes  this 
account  with  the  words,  *  All  this  was  reported  to  the 
Emperor  at  that  time,  Tiberius,  by  Pilate,  his  con- 
science having  compelled  even  him  to  become  a  Chris- 
tian.' 


348  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

"  The  document  now  in  our  possession  corresponds 
with  this  evidence  of  Justin  and  TertuUian.  Even  in 
the  title  it  agrees  with  the  account  of  Justin,  although 
instead  of  the  word  acta^  which  he  used,  and  which  is 
manifestly  much  more  Latin  than  Greek,  a  Greek  ex- 
pression is  employed  which  can  be  shown  to  have  been 
used  to  indicate  genuine  Acts.  The  details  recounted 
by  Justin  and  TertuUian  are  all  found  in  our  text  of 
the  Acts  of  Pilate,  with  this  variation,  that  nothing 
corresponds  to  what  is  joined  to  the  declaration  of  the 
prophet,  '  They  dragged  him  to  the  seat  of  judgment 
and  set  him  upon  it  and  said,'  etc.  Besides  this,  the 
casting  lots  for  the  vesture  is  expressed  simply  by  the 
allusion  to  the  division  of  the  clothes.  We  must  give 
even  closer  scrutiny  to  one  point.  Justin  alludes  to 
the  miracles  which  were  performed  in  fulfillment  of 
Old  Testament  prophecy,  on  the  lame,  the  dumb,  the 
blind,  the  dead,  and  on  lepers.  In  fact,  in  our  Acts  of 
Pilate  there  are  made  to  appear  before  the  Roman  gov- 
ernor a  palsied  man  who  had  suffered  for  thirty-eight 
years,  and  was  brought  in  a  bed  by  young  men,  and 
healed  on  the  Sabbath  day;  a  blind  man  cured  by  the 
laying  on  of  hands;  a  cripple  who  had  been  restored; 
a  leper  who  had  been  cleansed;  the  woman  whose  issue 
of  blood  had  been  stanched,  and  a  witness  of  the  raising 
of  Lazarus  from  the  dead.  Of  that  which  TertuUian 
cites  we  will  adduce  merely  the  passage  found  in  no 
one  of  our  gospels,  that  Jesus  passed  forty  days  after 
his  resurrection  in  company  with  his  disciples  in 
Galilee. 

"  This  is  indicated  in  our  Acts  of  Pilate  at  the  end 


ACTS    OF    PILATE  349 

of  the  fifteenth  chapter,  where  the  risen  man  is  repre- 
sented as  saying  to  Joseph:  '  For  forty  days  go  not  out 
of  thy  house,  for  behold  I  go  to  my  brethren  in  Galilee.' 

"  Every  one  will  perceive  how  strongly  the  argument 
that  our  Acts  of  Pilate  are  the  same  which  Justin  and 
Tertullian  read  is  buttressed  by  these  unexpected  coin- 
cidences. The  assertion  recently  made  requires,  conse- 
quently, no  labored  contradiction  that  the  allusions  to 
both  men  have  grown  out  of  their  mere  suspicion  that 
there  was  such  a  record  as  the  Acts  of  Pilate,  or  out 
of  the  circulation  of  a  mere  story  about  such  a  record, 
while  the  real  work  was  written  as  the  consequence  of 
these  allusions  at  the  close  of  the  third  century.  What 
an  uncommon  fancy  it  requires  in  the  two  men  to  coin- 
cide so  perfectly  in  a  single  production,  as  is  the  case 
in  the  Acts  to  which  I  am  now  referring.  And  are 
we  to  imagine  that  they  referred  with  such  emphasis 
as  they  employed  to  the  mere  creations  of  their  fancy? 

"  The  question  has  been  raised  with  more  justice, 
whether  the  production  in  our  possession  may  not  have 
been  a  copy  or  a  free  revision  of  the  old  and  primitive 
one.  The  modern  change  in  the  title  has  given  sup- 
port to  this  conjecture,  for  it  has  occasioned  the  work 
to  be  commonly  spoken  of  as  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus. 
But  this  title  is  borne  neither  by  any  Greek  manuscript, 
the  Coptic-Sahidian  papyrus,  nor  the  Latin  manu- 
scripts with  the  exception  of  a  few  of  the  most  recent. 
It  may  be  traced  only  subsequently  to  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury, although  at  a  very  early  period,  in  one  of  the  two 
prefaces  attached  to  the  work,  Nicodemus  is  mentioned 
in  one  place  as  a  Hebrew  author  and  in  another  as  a 


350  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Greek  translator.  But  aside  from  the  title,  the  hand- 
writing displays  great  variation,  and  the  two  prefaces 
alluded  to  above  show  clearly  the  work  of  two  hands. 
Notwithstanding  this,  however,  there  are  decisive 
grounds  for  holding  that  our  Acts  of  Pilate  contains 
in  its  main  substance  the  document  drawn  from  Justin 
and  Tertullian.  The  first  of  these  to  be  noticed  is,  that 
the  Greek  text,  as  given  in  the  version  most  widely 
circulated  in  the  manuscripts,  is  surprisingly  corrobo- 
rated by  two  documents  of  the  rarest  character,  and 
first  used  by  myself — a  Coptic-Sahidian  papyrus  manu- 
script and  a  Latin  palimpsest — both  probably  dating 
from  the  fifth  century.  Such  a  documentary  confirma- 
tion of  their  text  is  possessed  by  scarcely  ten  works  of 
the  collective  Greek  classic  literature.  Both  of  these 
ancient  writings  make  it  in  the  highest  degree  probable 
that  the  Egyptian  and  Latin  translations  which  they 
contain  were  executed  still  earlier. 

"  But  could  a  work  which  was  held  in  great  consid- 
eration in  Justin's  and  Tertullian's  time  and  down  to 
the  commencement  of  the  fourth  century,  and  which 
strenuously  insists  that  the  Emperor  Maximin  caused 
other  blasphemous  Acts  of  Pilate  to  be  published  and 
zealously  circulated,  manifestly  for  the  purpose  of  dis- 
placing and  discrediting  the  older  Christian  Acts — 
could  such  a  work  suddenly  change  its  whole  form, 
and  from  the  fifth  century,  to  which  in  so  extraordinary 
a  manner  translators,  wholly  different  in  character, 
point  back  with  such  wonderful  concurrence,  continue 
in  the  new  form?  Contrary  as  this  is  to  all  historical 
criticism,  there  is  in  the  contents  of  the  work,  in  the 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  351 

singular  manner  in  which  isolated  and  independent  de- 
tails are  shown  to  be  related  to  the  canonical  books,  no 
less  than  in  the  accordance  with  the  earliest  quotations 
found  in  Justin  and  TertuUian,  a  guaranty  of  the  great- 
est antiquity. 

^'  There  are  in  the  contents,  also,  matters  of  such  a 
nature  that  we  must  confess  that  they  are  to  be  traced 
back  to  the  primitive  edition,  as,  for  example,  the  nar- 
rative in  the  first  chapter  of  the  bringing  forward  of 
the  accused. 

"  It  is  incorrect,  moreover,  to  draw  a  conclusion  from 
Justin's  designation  of  the  Acta  which  is  not  warranted 
by  the  whole  character  of  the  work.  The  Acta,  the 
vTTOfjLVTJjjLaTa,  are  specified  in  Justin's  account  not  less 
than  in  the  manuscripts  which  we  possess,  as  being 
written  under  Pontius  Pilate,  and  that  can  signify  noth- 
ing else  than  that  they  were  an  official  production  com- 
posed under  the  direct  sanction  of  the  Roman  governor. 
Their  transmission  to  the  emperor  must  be  imagined 
as  accompanied  by  a  letter  of  the  same  character  with 
that  which  has  been  brought  down  to  us  in  the  Greek 
and  Latin  edition,  and  yet  not  at  all  similar  in  purport 
to  the  notable  Acts  of  Pilate."  ^ 

The  Acts  of  Pilate 

(First  Greek  Form) 

I,  Ananias,  of  the  propraetor's  bodyguard,  being 
learned  in  the  law,  knowing  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  coming  to  Him  by  faith, 

1  "Origin  of  the  Four  Gospels,"  pp.  141-50. 


^S^  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

and  counted  worthy  of  the  holy  baptism,  searching 
also  the  memorials  written  at  that  time  of  what  was 
done  in  the  case  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  the 
Jews  had  laid  up  in  the  time  of  Pontius  Pilate,  found 
these  memorials  written  in  Hebrew,  and,  by  the  favor 
of  God,  have  translated  them  into  Greek  for  the  infor- 
mation of  all  who  call  upon  the  name  of  our  Master 
Jesus  Christ,  in  the  seventeenth  year  of  the  reign  of 
our  lord  Flavins  Theodosius,  and  the  sixth  of  Flavius 
Valentianus,  in  the  ninth  indiction. 

All  ye,  therefore,  who  read  and  transfer  into  other 
books,  remember  me  and  pray  for  me,  and  pardon  my 
sins  which  I  have  sinned  against  Him. 

Peace  be  to  those  who  read  and  those  who  hear,  and 
to  their  households.    Amen. 

Chapter  i. — Having  called  a  council,  the  high 
priests  and  the  scribes  Annas  and  Caiaphas  and  Semes 
and  Dathaes,  and  Gamaliel,  Judas,  Levi  and  Neptha- 
lim,  Alexander  and  Jairus,  and  the  rest  of  the  Jews, 
came  to  Pilate  accusing  Jesus  about  many  things,  say- 
ing: We  know  this  man  to  be  the  son  of  Joseph  the 
carpenter,  born  of  Mary;  and  he  says  that  he  is  the 
Son  of  God,  and  a  king;  moreover,  profanes  the  Sab- 
bath, and  wishes  to  do  away  with  the  law  of  our  fa- 
thers. Pilate  says:  And  what  are  the  things  which  he 
does,  to  show  that  he  wishes  to  do  away  with  it?  The 
Jews  say:  We  have  a  law  not  to  cure  anyone  on  the 
Sabbath;  but  this  man  has,  on  the  Sabbath,  cured  the 
lame  and  the  crooked,  the  withered  and  the  blind  and 
the  paralytic,  the  dumb  and  the  demoniac,  by  evil  prac- 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  352 

tices.  Pilate  says  to  them:  What  evil  practices?  They 
say  to  him:  He  is  a  magician,  and  by  Beelzebub,  prince 
of  the  demons,  he  casts  out  the  demons,  and  all  are 
subject  to  him.  Pilate  says  to  them:  This  is  not  cast- 
ing out  the  demons  by  an  unclean  spirit,  but  by  the 
god  Esculapius. 

The  Jews  say  to  Pilate:  We  entreat  your  highness 
that  he  stand  at  the  tribunal  and  be  heard.  And  Pi- 
late, having  called  them,  says:  Tell  me  how  I,  being 
a  procurator,  can  try  a  king?  They  say  to  him:  We 
do  not  say  that  he  is  a  king,  but  he  himself  says  that 
he  is.  And  Pilate,  having  called  the  runner,  says  to 
him:  Let  Jesus  be  brought  in  with  respect.  And  the 
runner,  going  out  and  recognizing  him,  adored  him, 
and  took  his  cloak  into  his  hand  and  spread  it  on  the 
ground,  and  says  to  him:  My  Lord,  walk  on  this  and 
come  in,  for  the  procurator  calls  thee.  And  the  Jews, 
seeing  what  the  runner  had  done,  cried  out  against 
Pilate,  saying:  Why  hast  thou  ordered  him  to  come 
in  by  a  runner,  and  not  by  a  crier?  for  assuredly  the 
runner,  when  he  saw  him,  adored  him,  and  spread 
his  doublet  on  the  ground  and  made  him  walk  like 
a  king. 

And  Pilate,  having  called  the  runner,  says  to  him: 
Why  hast  thou  done  this,  and  spread  out  thy  cloak 
upon  the  earth  and  made  Jesus  walk  upon  it?  The 
runner  says  to  him:  My  Lord  procurator,  when  thou 
didst  send  me  to  Jerusalem  to  Alexander,  I  saw  him 
sitting  upon  an  ass,  and  the  sons  of  the  Hebrews  held 
branches  in  their  hands  and  shouted;  and  others  spread 
their  clothes  under  him  saying:  Save  now,  thou  who 


354  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

art  in  the  highest;  blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord. 

The  Jews  cry  out  and  say  to  the  runner:  The  sons 
of  the  Hebrews  shouted  in  Hebrew;  whence,  then,  hast 
thou  the  Greek?  The  runner  says  to  them:  I  asked 
one  of  the  Jews,  and  said:  What  is  it  they  are  shouting 
in  Hebrew?  And  he  interpreted  it  for  me.  Pilate  says 
to  them:  And  what  did  they  shout  in  Hebrew?  The 
Jews  say  to  him:  Hosanna  membrome  baruchamma 
adonai.  Pilate  says  to  them:  And  this  hosanna,  etc., 
how  is  it  interpreted?  The  Jews  say  to  him:  Save  now 
in  the  highest;  blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord.  Pilate  says  to  them:  If  you  bear  witness 
to  the  words  spoken  by  the  children,  in  what  has  the 
runner  done  wrong?  And  they  were  silent.  And  the 
procurator  says  to  the  runner:  Go  out  and  bring  him 
in  what  way  thou  wilt.  And  the  runner,  going  out,  did 
in  the  same  manner  as  before,  and  says  to  Jesus:  My 
Lord,  come  in;  the  procurator  calleth  thee. 

And  Jesus,  going  in,  and  the  standard  bearers  hold- 
ing their  standards,  the  tops  of  the  standards  bent  down, 
and  adored  Jesus.  And  the  Jews,  seeing  the  bearing 
of  the  standards  how  they  were  bent  down  and  adored 
Jesus,  cried  out  vehemently  against  the  standard  bear- 
ers. And  Pilate  says  to  the  Jews:  Do  you  not  wonder 
how  the  tops  of  the  standards  were  bent  down  and 
adored  Jesus?  The  Jews  say  to  Pilate:  We  saw  how 
the  standard  bearers  bent  them  down  and  adored  him. 
And  the  procurator,  having  called  the  standard  bearers, 
says  to  them:  Why  have  you  done  this?  They  say  to 
Pilate:  We  are  Greeks  and  temple  slaves,  and  how 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  3$$ 

could  we  adore  him?  and  assuredly,  as  we  were  holding 
the'm  up,  the  tops  bent  down  of  their  own  accord  and 
adored  him. 

Pilate  says  to  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue  and  the 
elders  of  the  people:  Do  you  choose  for  yourselves  men 
strong  and  powerful,  and  let  them  hold  up  the  stan- 
dards, and  let  us  see  whether  they  will  bend  down  with 
them.  And  the  elders  of  the  Jews  picked  out  twelve 
men  powerful  and  strong,  and  made  them  hold  up  the 
standards  six  by  six;  and  they  were  placed  in  front  of 
the  procurator's  tribunal.  And  Pilate  says  to  the  run- 
ner: Take  him  outside  of  the  Pretorium,  and  bring  him 
in  again  in  whatever  way  may  please  thee.  And  Jesus 
and  the  runner  went  out  of  the  Pretorium.  And  Pilate, 
summoning  those  who  had  formerly  held  up  the  stan- 
dards, says  to  them:  I  have  sworn  by  the  health  of 
Caesar,  that  if  the  standards  do  not  bend  down  when 
Jesus  comes  in,  I  will  cut  off  your  heads.  And  the 
procurator  ordered  Jesus  to  come  in  the  second  time. 
And  the  runner  did  in  the  same  manner  as  before,  and 
made  many  entreaties  to  Jesus  to  walk  on  his  cloak. 
And  he  walked  on  it  and  went  in.  And  as  he  went  in 
the  standards  were  again  bent  down  and  adored  Jesus. 

Chap.  2. — And  Pilate,  seeing  this,  was  afraid,  and 
sought  to  go  away  from  the  tribunal ;  but  when  he  was 
still  thinking  of  going  away,  his  wife  sent  to  him  say- 
ing: Have  nothing  to  do  with  this  just  man,  for  many 
things  have  I  suffered  on  his  account  this  night.  And 
Pilate,  summoning  the  Jews,  says  to  them:  You  know 
that  my  wife  is  a  worshiper  of  God,  and  prefers  to 


356  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

adhere  to  the  Jewish  religion  along  with  you.  They 
say  to  him:  Yes,  we  know.  Pilate  says  to  them:  Be- 
hold, my  wife  has  sent  to  me,  saying.  Have  nothing 
to  do  with  this  just  man,  for  many  things  have  I  suf- 
fered on  account  of  him  this  night.  And  the  Jews  an- 
swering, say  unto  Pilate :  Did  we  not  tell  thee  that  he 
was  a  sorcerer?  Behold,  he  has  sent  a  dream  to  thy 
wife. 

And  Pilate,  having  summoned  Jesus,  says  to  him: 
What  do  these  witness  against  thee?  Sayest  thou  noth- 
ing? And  Jesus  said:  Unless  they  had  the  power,  they 
would  say  nothing;  for  every  one  has  the  power  of 
his  own  mouth  to  speak  both  good  and  evil.  They 
shall  see  to  it. 

And  the  elders  of  the  Jews  answered,  and  said  to 
Jesus:  What  shall  we  see?  First,  that  thou  wast 
born  of  fornication;  secondly,  that  thy  birth  in  Beth- 
lehem was  the  cause  of  the  murder  of  the  infants; 
thirdly,  that  thy  father  Joseph  and  thy  mother  Mary 
fled  into  Egypt  because  they  had  no  confidence  in  the 
people. 

Some  of  the  bystanders,  pious  men  of  the  Jews,  say: 
We  deny  that  he  was  born  of  fornication;  for  we  know 
that  Joseph  espoused  Mary,  and  he  was  not  born  of 
fornication.  Pilate  says  to  the  Jews  who  said  he  was 
of  fornication:  This  story  of  yours  is  not  true,  because 
they  were  betrothed,  as  also  these  fellow-countrymen 
of  yours  say.  Annas  and  Caiaphas  say  to  Pilate:  All 
the  multitude  of  us  cry  out  that  he  was  born  of  forni- 
cation, and  are  not  believed;  these  are  proselytes  and 
his  disciples.    And  Pilate,  calling  Annas  and  Caiaphas, 


ACTS    OF    PILAIE  357 

says  to  them:  What  are  proselytes?  They  say  to  him: 
They  are  by  birth  children  of  the  Greeks,  and  have 
now  become  Jews.  And  those  that  said  that  he  was 
not  born  of  fornication,  viz.:  Lazarus,  Asterius,  Anto- 
nius,  James,  Amnes,  Zeras,  Samuel,  Isaac,  Phinees, 
Crispus,  Agrippas  and  Judas,  say:  We  are  not  prose- 
lytes, but  are  children  of  the  Jews,  and  speak  the  truth; 
for  we  were  present  at  the  betrothal  of  Joseph  and 
Mary. 

And  Pilate,  calling  these  twelve  men  who  said  that 
he  was  not  born  of  fornication,  says  to  them:  I  adjure 
you,  by  the  health  of  Caesar,  to  tell  me  whether  it  be 
true  that  you  say,  that  he  was  not  born  of  fornication. 
They  say  to  Pilate :  We  have  a  law  against  taking  oaths, 
because  it  is  a  sin;  but  they  will  swear  by  the  health 
of  Caesar  that  it  is  not  as  we  have  said,  and  we  are 
liable  to  death.  Pilate  says  to  Annas  and  Caiaphas: 
Have  you  nothing  to  answer  to  this?  Annas  and  Caia- 
phas say  to  Pilate :  These  twelve  are  believed  when  they 
say  that  he  was  not  born  of  fornication;  all  the  multi- 
tude of  us  cry  out  that  he  was  born  of  fornication,  and 
that  he  is  a  sorcerer;  and  he  says  that  he  is  the  Son 
of  God  and  a  king,  and  we  are  not  believed. 

And  Pilate  orders  all  the  multitude  to  go  out,  ex- 
cept the  twelve  men  who  said  that  he  was  not  born 
of  fornication,  and  he  ordered  Jesus  to  be  separated 
from  them.  And  Pilate  says  to  them:  For  what  reason 
do  they  wish  to  put  him  to  death?  They  say  to  him: 
They  are  angry  because  he  cures  on  the  Sabbath.  Pi- 
late says:  For  a  good  work  do  they  wish  to  put  him  to 
death?    They  say  to  him :  Yes. 


358  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Chap.  3. — And  Pilate,  filled  with  rage,  went  outside 
of  the  Pretorium  and  said  to  them:  I  take  the  sun  to 
witness  that  I  find  no  fault  in  this  man.  The  Jews 
answered  and  said  to  the  procurator:  Unless  this  man 
were  an  evil-doer,  we  should  not  have  delivered  him  to 
thee.  And  Pilate  said:  Do  you  take  him  and  judge 
him  according  to  your  law.  The  Jews  said  to  Pilate: 
It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  anyone  to  death.  Pilate 
said:  Has  God  said  that  you  are  not  to  put  to  death, 
but  that  I  am? 

And  Pilate  went  again  into  the  Pretorium  and  spoke 
to  Jesus  privately,  and  said  to  him:  Art  thou  the  king 
of  the  Jews?  Jesus  answered  Pilate:  Dost  thou  say 
this  of  thyself,  or  have  others  said  it  to  thee  of  me? 
Pilate  answered  Jesus:  Am  I  also  a  Jew?  Thy  nation 
and  the  chief  priests  have  given  thee  up  to  me.  What 
hast  thou  done?  Jesus  answered:  My  kingdom  is  not 
of  this  world;  for  if  my  kingdom  were  of  this  world, 
my  servants  would  fight  in  order  that  I  should  not  be 
given  up  to  the  Jews :  but  now  my  kingdom  is  not  from 
thence.  Pilate  said  to  him:  Art  thou,  then,  a  king? 
Jesus  answered  him:  Thou  sayest  that  I  am  king.  Be- 
cause for  this  have  I  been  born,  and  I  have  come,  in 
order  that  everyone  who  is  of  the  truth  might  hear  my 
voice.  Pilate  says  to  him:  What  is  truth?  Jesus  says 
to  him:  Truth  is  from  heaven.  Pilate  says:  Is  truth 
not  upon  earth?  Jesus  says  to  Pilate:  Thou  seest  how 
those  who  speak  the  truth  are  judged  by  those  that  have 
the  power  upon  earth. 

Chap.  4. — And  leaving  Jesus  within  the  Pretorium, 


ACTS   OF   PILATE 


359 


Pilate  went  out  to  the  Jews  and  said  to  them:  I  find 
no  fault  in  him.  The  Jews  say  to  him:  He  said,  I  can 
destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  build  it.  Pilate 
says:  What  temple?  The  Jews  say:  The  one  that  Solo- 
mon built  in  forty-six  years,  and  this  man  speaks  of 
pulling  it  down  and  building  it  up  in  three  days.  Pi- 
late says  to  them:  I  am  innocent  of  the  blood  of  this 
just  man.  See  you  to  it.  The  Jews  say:  His  blood  be 
upon  us  and  upon  our  children. 

And  Pilate,  having  summoned  the  elders  and  priests 
and  Levites,  said  to  them  privately:  Do  not  act  thus, 
because  no  charge  that  you  bring  against  him  is  worthy 
of  death;  for  your  charge  is  about  curing  and  Sabbath 
profanation.  The  elders  and  the  priests  and  the  Levites 
say:  If  anyone  speak  evil  against  Caesar,  is  he  worthy 
of  death  or  not?  Pilate  says:  He  is  worthy  of  death. 
The  Jews  say  to  Pilate:  If  anyone  speak  evil  against 
Caesar,  he  is  worthy  of  death;  but  this  man  has  spoken 
evil  against  God. 

And  the  procurator  ordered  the  Jews  to  go  outside 
of  the  Pretorium;  and,  summoning  Jesus,  he  says  to 
him:  What  shall  I  do  to  thee?  Jesus  says  to  Pilate: 
As  it  has  been  given  to  thee.  Pilate  says:  How  given? 
Jesus  says:  Moses  and  the  prophets  have  proclaimed 
beforehand  of  my  death  and  resurrection.  And  the 
Jews,  noticing  this  and  hearing  it,  say  to  Pilate:  What 
more  wilt  thou  hear  of  this  blasphemy?  Pilate  says 
to  the  Jews:  If  these  words  be  blasphemous,  do  you 
take  him  for  the  blasphemy,  and  lead  him  away  to 
your  synagogue  and  judge  him  according  to  your  law. 
The  Jews  say  to  Pilate :  Our  law  bears  that  a  man  who 


36o  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

wrongs  his  fellow-men  is  worthy  to  receive  forty  save 
one:  but  he  that  blasphemeth  God  is  to  be  stoned  with 
stones. 

Pilate  says  to  them:  Do  you  take  him  and  punish 
him  in  whatever  way  you  please.  The  Jews  say  to 
Pilate:  We  wish  that  he  be  crucified.  Pilate  says:  He 
is  not  deserving  of  crucifixion. 

And  the  procurator,  looking  round  upon  the  crowds 
of  the  Jews  standing  by,  sees  many  of  the  Jews  weep- 
ing, and  says:  All  the  multitude  do  not  wish  him  to 
die.  The  elders  of  the  Jews  say:  For  this  reason  all 
the  multitude  of  us  have  come,  that  he  should  die. 
Pilate  says  to  the  Jews :  Why  should  he  die?  The  Jews 
say:  Because  he  called  himself  the  Son  of  God  and 
King. 

Chap.  5. — And  one  Nicodemus,  a  Jew,  stood  before 
the  procurator  and  said:  I  beseech  your  honor  let  me 
say  a  few  words.  Pilate  says:  Say  on.  Nicodemus 
says:  I  said  to  the  elders  and  the  priests  and  Levites, 
and  to  all  the  multitude  of  the  Jews  in  the  synagogue, 
What  do  you  seek  to  do  with  this  man?  This  man 
does  many  miracles  and  strange  things,  which  no  one 
has  done  or  will  do.  Let  him  go  and  do  not  wish  any 
evil  against  him.  If  the  miracles  which  he  does  are  of 
God,  they  will  stand;  but  if  of  man,  they  will  come 
to  nothing.  For  assuredly  Moses,  being  sent  by  God 
into  Egypt,  did  many  miracles,  which  the  Lord  com- 
manded him  to  do  before  Pharaoh,  king  of  Egypt. 
And  there  were  Jannes  and  Jambres,  servants  of  Pha- 
raoh, and  they  also  did  not  a  few  of  the  miracles  which 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  361 

Moses  did ;  and  the  Egyptians  took  them  to  be  gods — 
this  Jannes  and  Jambres.  But,  since  the  miracles  which 
they  did  were  not  of  God,  both  they  and  those  who 
believed  in  them  were  destroyed.  And  now  release 
this  man,  for  he  is  not  deserving  of  death. 

The  Jews  say  to  Nicodemus:  Thou  hast  become  his 
disciple,  and  therefore  thou  defendest  him.  Nicode- 
mus says  to  them:  Perhaps,  too,  the  procurator  has 
become  his  disciple,  because  he  defends  him.  Has  the 
emperor  not  appointed  him  to  this  place  of  dignity? 
And  the  Jews  were  vehemently  enraged,  and  gnashed 
their  teeth  against  Nicodemus.  Pilate  says  to  them: 
Why  do  you  gnash  your  teeth  against  him  when  you 
hear  the  truth?  The  Jews  say  to  Nicodemus:  Mayst 
thou  receive  his  truth  and  his  portion.  Nicodemus 
says :  Amen,  amen ;  may  I  receive  it,  as  you  have  said. 

Chap.  6. — One  of  the  Jews,  stepping  up,  asked  leave 
of  the  procurator  to  say  a  word.  The  procurator  says: 
If  thou  wishest  to  say  anything,  say  on.  And  the  Jew 
said :  Thirty-eight  years  I  lay  in  my  bed  in  great  agony. 
And  when  Jesus  came,  many  demoniacs  and  many  lying 
ill  of  various  diseases  were  cured  by  him.  And  when 
Jesus  saw  me  he  had  compassion  on  me,  and  said  to 
me:  Take  up  thy  couch  and  walk.  And  I  took  up 
my  couch  and  walked.  The  Jews  say  to  Pilate:  Ask 
him  on  what  day  it  was  when  he  was  cured.  He  that 
had  been  cured  says:  On  a  Sabbath.  The  Jews  say: 
Is  not  this  the  very  thing  we  said,  that  on  a  Sabbath 
he  cures  and  casts  out  demons? 

And  another  Jew  stepped  up  and  said:  I  was  born 


362  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

blind;  I  heard  sounds,  but  saw  not  a  face.  And  as 
Jesus  passed  by  I  cried  out  with  a  loud  voice,  Pity  me, 

0  son  of  David.  And  he  pitied  me  and  put  his  hands 
upon  my  eyes,  and  I  instantly  received  my  sight.  And 
another  Jew  stepped  up  and  said:  I  was  crooked  and 
he  straightened  me  with  a  word.     And  another  said: 

1  was  a  leper,  and  he  cured  me  with  a  word. 

Chap.  7. — And  a  woman  cried  out  from  a  distance 
and  said:  I  had  an  issue  of  blood,  and  I  touched  the 
hem  of  his  garment,  and  the  issue  of  blood,  which  I 
had  had  for  twelve  years,  was  stopped.  The  Jews  say: 
We  have  a  law  that  a  woman's  evidence  is  not  received. 

Chap.  8. — And  others,  a  multitude  both  of  men  and 
women,  cried  out,  saying:  This  man  is  a  prophet,  and 
the  demons  are  subject  to  him.  Pilate  says  to  them 
who  said  that  the  demons  were  subject  to  him:  Why, 
then,  were  not  your  teachers  also  subject  to  him?  They 
say  to  Pilate:  We  do  not  know.  And  others  said:  He 
raised  Lazarus  from  the  tomb  after  he  had  been  dead 
four  days.  And  the  procurator  trembled,  and  said  to 
all  the  multitude  of  the  Jews:  Why  do  you  wish  to 
pour  out  innocent  blood? 

Chap.  9. — And,  having  summoned  Nicodemus  and 
the  twelve  men  that  said  he  was  not  born  of  fornica- 
tion, he  says  to  them:  What  shall  I  do,  because  there  is 
an  insurrection  among  the  people?  They  say  to  him: 
We  know  not;  let  them  see  to  it.  Again  Pilate,  having 
summoned  all  the  multitude  of  the  Jews,  says:  You 


ACTS   OF   PILATE  2^2 

know  that  It  Is  customary,  at  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread,  to  release  one  prisoner  to  you.  I  have  one  con- 
demned prisoner  in  the  prison,  a  murderer  named  Bar 
Abbas,  and  this  man  standing  in  your  presence,  Jesus 
in  whom  I  find  no  fault.  Which  of  them  do  you  wish 
me  to  release  to  you?  And  they  cry  out:  Bar  Abbas. 
Pilate  says:  What,  then,  shall  we  do  to  Jesus,  who  is 
called  Christ?  The  Jews  say:  Let  him  be  crucified. 
And  others  said:  Thou  art  no  friend  of  Caesar's  if  thou 
release  this  man,  because  he  called  himself  the  Son 
of  God  and  King.  You  wish  this  man,  then,  to  be  a 
king,  and  not  Caesar? 

And  Pilate,  in  a  rage,  says  to  the  Jews:  Always  has 
your  nation  been  rebellious,  and  you  always  speak 
against  your  benefactors.  The  Jews  say:  What  bene- 
factors? He  says  to  them:  Your  God  led  you  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt  from  bitter  slavery,  and  brought  you 
safe  through  the  sea  as  through  dry  land,  and  In  the 
desert  fed  you  with  manna  and  gave  you  quails,  and 
quenched  your  thirst  with  water  from  a  rock,  and  gave 
you  a  law;  and  in  all  these  things  have  you  provoked 
your  God  to  anger,  and  sought  a  molten  calf.  And 
you  exasperated  your  God,  and  he  sought  to  slay  you. 
And  Moses  prayed  for  you,  and  you  were  not  put  to 
death.  And  now  you  charge  me  with  hating  the  em- 
peror. 

And,  rising  up  from  the  tribunal,  he  sought  to  go 
out.  And  the  Jews  cry  out  and  say:  We  know  that 
Caesar  is  king,  and  not  Jesus.  For  assuredly  the  magi 
brought  gifts  to  him  as  to  a  king.  And  when  Herod 
heard  from  the  magi  that  a  king  had  been  born,  he 


364  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

sought  to  slay  him;  and  his  father,  Joseph,  knowing 
this,  took  him  and  his  mother,  and  they  fled  into  Egypt. 
And  Herod,  hearing  of  it,  destroyed  the  children  of 
the  Hebrews  that  had  been  born  in  Bethlehem. 

And  when  Pilate  heard  these  words  he  was  afraid; 
and,  ordering  the  crowd  to  keep  silence,  because  they 
were  crying  out,  he  says  to  them:  So  this  is  he  whom 
Herod  sought?  The  Jews  say:  Yes,  it  is  he.  And, 
taking  water,  Pilate  washed  his  hands  in  the  face  of 
the  sun,  saying:  I  am  innocent  of  the  blood  of  this 
just  man:  see  you  to  it.  Again  the  Jews  cry  out:  His 
blood  be  upon  us  and  upon  our  children. 

Then  Pilate  ordered  the  curtain  of  the  tribunal 
where  he  was  sitting  to  be  drawn,  and  says  to  Jesus: 
Thy  nation  has  charged  thee  with  being  a  king.  On 
this  account,  I  sentence  thee  first  to  be  scourged,  ac- 
cording to  the  enactment  of  venerable  kings,  and  then 
to  be  fastened  on  the  cross  in  the  garden  where  thou 
was  seized.  And  let  Dysmas  and  Gestas,  the  two  male- 
factors, be  crucified  with  thee. 

Chap.  10. — And  Jesus  went  forth  out  of  the  Preto- 
rium,  and  the  malefactors  with  him.  And  when  they 
came  to  the  place  they  stripped  him  of  his  clothes  and 
girded  him  with  a  towel,  and  put  a  crown  of  thorns  on 
him  round  his  head.  And  they  crucified  him;  and  at 
the  same  time,  also,  they  hung  up  the  two  malefactors 
along  with  him.  And  Jesus  said :  Father,  forgive  them, 
for  they  know  not  what  they  do.  And  the  soldiers  parted 
his  clothes  among  them;  and  the  people  stood  looking 
at  him.    And  the  chief  priests  and  the  rulers  with  them 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  1,6s 

mocked  him,  saying:  He  saved  others;  let  him  save 
himself.  If  he  be  the  Son  of  God,  let  him  come  down 
from  the  cross.  And  the  soldiers  made  sport  of  him, 
coming  near  and  offering  him  vinegar  mixed  with 
gall,  and  said:  Thou  art  the  king  of  the  Jews;  save 
thyself. 

And  Pilate,  after  the  sentence,  ordered  the  charge 
against  him  to  be  inscribed  as  a  superscription  in  Greek 
and  Latin  and  Hebrew,  according  to  what  the  Jews 
had  said:  He  is  king  of  the  Jews. 

And  one  of  the  malefactors  hanging  up  spoke  to  him, 
saying:  If  thou  be  the  Christ,  save  thyself  and  us.  And 
Dysmas  answering  reproved  him,  saying:  Dost  thou 
not  fear  God,  because  thou  art  in  the  same  condemna- 
tion? And  we,  indeed,  justly,  for  we  receive  the  fit 
punishment  of  our  deeds;  but  this  man  has  done  no 
evil.  And  he  said  to  Jesus:  Remember  me.  Lord,  in 
thy  kingdom.  And  Jesus  said  to  him:  Amen,  amen; 
I  say  to  thee,  To-day  shalt  thou  be  with  me  in  Para- 
dise. 

Chap.  n. — And  it  was  about  the  sixth  hour,  and 
there  was  darkness  over  the  earth  until  the  ninth  hour, 
the  sun  being  darkened;  and  the  curtain  of  the  temple 
was  split  in  the  middle.  And,  crying  out  with  a  loud 
voice,  Jesus  said:  Father,  baddach  ephkid  ruel,  which 
is,  interpreted,  Into  thy  hands  I  commit  my  spirit. 
And,  having  said  this,  he  gave  up  the  ghost.  And 
the  centurion,  seeing  what  had  happened,  glorified 
God  and  said:  This  was  a  just  man.  And  all  the 
crowds  that  were  present  at  this  spectacle,  when  they 


266  THE   TRIAL   OF    JESUS 

saw  what  had  happened,  beat  their  breasts  and  went 
away. 

And  the  centurion  reported  what  had  happened  to 
the  procurator.  And  when  the  procurator  and  his  wife 
heard  it  they  were  exceedingly  grieved,  and  neither 
ate  nor  drank  that  day.  And  Pilate  sent  for  the  Jews 
and  said  to  them:  Have  you  seen  what  has  happened? 
And  they  say:  There  has  been  an  eclipse  of  the  sun 
in  the  usual  way. 

And  his  acquaintances  were  standing  at  a  distance, 
and  the  women  who  came  with  him  from  Galilee,  see- 
ing these  things.  And  a  man  named  Joseph,  a  coun- 
cillor from  the  city  of  Arimathea,  who  also  waited  for 
the  kingdom  of  God,  went  to  Pilate  and  begged  the 
body  of  Jesus.  And  he  took  it  down  and  wrapped  it 
in  a  clean  linen,  and  placed  it  in  a  tomb  hewn  out  of 
the  rock,  in  which  no  one  had  ever  lain. 

Chap.  12. — And  the  Jews,  hearing  that  Joseph  had 
begged  the  body  of  Jesus,  sought  him,  and  the  twelve 
who  said  that  Jesus  was  not  born  of  fornication,  and 
Nicodemus  and  many  others  who  had  stepped  up  be- 
fore Pilate  and  declared  his  good  works.  And  of  all 
these  that  were  hid  Nicodemus  alone  was  seen  by  them, 
because  he  was  a  ruler  of  the  Jews.  And  Nicodemus 
says  to  them:  How  have  you  come  into  the  synagogue? 
The  Jews  say  to  him:  How  hast  thou  come  into  the 
synagogue?  for  thou  art  a  confederate  of  his,  and  his 
portion  is  with  thee  in  the  world  to  come.  Nicodemus 
says:  Amen,  amen.  And  likewise  Joseph  also  stepped 
out  and  said  to  them:  Why  are  you  angry  against  me 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  367 

because  I  begged  the  body  of  Jesus?  Behold,  I  have 
put  him  in  my  new  tomb,  wrapping  him  in  clean  linen; 
and  I  have  rolled  a  stone  to  the  door  of  the  tomb.  And 
you  have  acted  not  well  against  the  just  man,  because 
you  have  not  repented  of  crucifying  him,  but  also  have 
pierced  him  with  a  spear.  And  the  Jews  seized  Joseph 
and  ordered  him  to  be  secured  until  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  and  said  to  him:  Know  that  the  time  does 
not  allow  us  to  do  anything  against  thee,  because  the 
Sabbath  is  dawning:  and  know  that  thou  shalt  not  be 
deemed  worthy  of  burial,  but  we  shall  give  thy  flesh 
to  the  birds  of  the  air.  Joseph  says  to  them:  These  are 
the  words  of  the  arrogant  Goliath,  who  reproached  the 
living  God  and  holy  David.  For  God  has  said  by  the 
prophet,  Vengeance  is  mine,  and  I  will  repay,  saith 
the  Lord.  And  now  that  he  is  uncircumcised  in  flesh, 
but  circumcised  in  heart,  has  taken  water  and  washed 
his  hands  in  the  face  of  the  sun,  saying,  I  am  innocent 
of  the  blood  of  this  just  man;  see  ye  to  it.  And  you 
answered  and  said  to  Pilate:  His  blood  be  upon  us  and 
upon  our  children.  And  now  I  am  afraid,  lest  the 
wrath  of  God  come  upon  you  and  upon  your  children, 
as  you  have  said.  And  the  Jews,  hearing  these  words, 
were  embittered  in  their  souls,  and  seized  Joseph  and 
locked  him  into  a  room  where  there  was  no  window; 
and  guards  were  stationed  at  the  door,  and  they  sealed 
the  door  where  Joseph  was  locked  in. 

And  on  the  Sabbath  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue  and 
the  priests  and  the  Levites  made  a  decree  that  all  should 
be  found  in  the  synagogue  on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
And,  rising  up  early,  all  the  multitude  in  the  synagogue 


368  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

consulted  by  what  death  they  should  slay  him.  And 
when  the  Sanhedrin  was  sitting,  they  ordered  him  to 
be  brought  with  much  indignity.  And,  having  opened 
the  door,  they  found  him  not.  And  all  the  people 
were  surprised  and  struck  with  dismay,  because  they 
found  the  seals  unbroken,  and  because  Caiaphas  had 
the  key.  And  they  no  longer  dared  to  lay  hands  upon 
those  who  had  spoken  before  Pilate  in  Jesus'  behalf. 

Chap.  13. — And  while  they  were  still  sitting  in  the 
synagogue  and  wondering  about  Joseph,  there  came 
some  of  the  guard  whom  the  Jews  had  begged  of  Pi- 
late to  guard  the  tomb  of  Jesus,  that  his  disciples  might 
not  come  and  steal  him.  And  they  reported  to  the 
rulers  of  the  synagogue,  and  the  priests  and  Levites, 
what  had  happened:  how  there  had  been  an  earth- 
quake; and  we  saw  an  angel  coming  down  from  heav- 
en, and  he  rolled  away  the  stone  from  the  mouth  of 
the  tomb  and  sat  upon  it;  and  he  shone  like  snow  and 
like  lightning.  And  we  were  very  much  afraid,  and 
lay  like  dead  men;  and  we  heard  the  voice  of  the  angel, 
saying  to  the  women  who  remained  beside  the  tomb, 
Be  not  afraid,  for  I  know  that  you  seek  Jesus,  who  was 
crucified.  He  is  not  here.  He  has  risen,  as  he  said. 
Come,  see  the  place  where  the  Lord  lay;  and  go  quickly 
and  tell  his  disciples  that  he  is  risen  from  the  dead, 
and  is  in  Galilee. 

The  Jews  say:  To  what  women  did  he  speak?  The 
men  of  the  guard  say:  We  know  not  who  they  were. 
The  Jews  say:  At  what  time  was  this?  The  men  of 
the  guard  say :  At  midnight.  The  Jews  say :  And  where- 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  369 

fore  did  you  not  lay  hold  of  them?  The  men  of  the 
guard  say:  We  were  like  dead  men  from  fear,  not 
expecting  to  see  the  light  of  day,  and  how  could  we 
lay  hold  of  them?  The  Jews  say:  As  the  Lord  liveth, 
we  do  not  believe  you.  The  men  of  the  guard  say  to 
the  Jews :  You  have  seen  so  great  miracles  in  the  case 
of  this  man,  and  have  not  believed;  and  how  can  you 
believe  us?  And  assuredly  you  have  done  well  to  swear 
that  the  Lord  liveth,  for  indeed  he  does  live.  Again 
the  men  of  the  guard  say:  We  have  heard  that  you 
have  locked  up  the  man  that  begged  the  body  of  Jesus, 
and  put  a  seal  on  the  door;  and  that  you  have  opened 
it  and  not  found  him.  Do  you,  then,  give  us  the  man 
whom  you  were  guarding,  and  we  shall  give  you  Jesus. 
The  Jews  say:  Joseph  has  gone  away  to  his  own  city. 
The  men  of  the  guard  say  to  the  Jews :  And  Jesus  has 
risen,  as  we  heard  from  the  angel,  and  is  in  Galilee. 

And  when  the  Jews  heard  these  words  they  were 
very  much  afraid,  and  said:  We  must  take  care  lest 
this  story  be  heard,  and  all  incline  to  Jesus.  And  the 
Jews  called  a  council,  and  paid  down  a  considerable 
money  and  gave  it  to  the  soldiers,  saying:  Say,  while 
he  slept,  his  disciples  came  by  night  and  stole  him; 
and  if  this  come  to  the  ears  of  the  procurator  we  shall 
persuade  him  and  keep  you  out  of  trouble.  And  they 
took  it,  and  said  as  they  had  been  instructed. 

Chap.  14. — And  Phinees,  a  priest,  and  Adas,  a 
teacher,  and  Haggai,  a  Levite,  came  down  from  Gali- 
lee to  Jerusalem,  and  said  to  the  rulers  of  the  syna- 
gogue, and  the  priests  and  the  Levites:  We  saw  Jesus 


370  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

and  his  disciples  sitting  on  the  mountain  called  Ma- 
milch;  and  he  said  to  his  disciples,  Go  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach  to  every  creature:  he  that  believeth 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  believeth 
not  shall  be  condemned.  And  these  signs  shall  attend 
those  who  have  believed:  in  my  name  they  shall  cast 
out  demons,  speak  new  tongues,  take  up  serpents;  and 
if  they  drink  any  deadly  thing  it  shall  by  no  means  hurt 
them;  they  shall  lay  hands  on  the  sick,  and  they  shall 
be  well.  And  while  Jesus  was  speaking  to  his  disciples 
we  saw  him  taken  up  into  heaven. 

The  elders  and  priests  and  Levites  say:  Give  glory 
to  the  God  of  Israel,  and  confess  to  him  whether  you 
have  heard  and  seen  those  things,  of  which  you  have 
given  us  an  account.  And  those  who  had  given  the 
account  said:  As  the  Lord  liveth,  the  God  of  our 
fathers,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  we  heard  these 
things,  and  saw  him  taken  up  into  heaven.  The  elders 
and  the  priests  and  the  Levites  say  to  them:  Have  you 
come  to  give  us  this  announcement,  or  to  offer  prayer 
to  God?  And  they  say:  To  offer  prayer  to  God.  The 
elders  and  the  chief  priests  and  the  Levites  say  to  them : 
If  you  have  come  to  offer  prayer  to  God,  why,  then, 
have  you  told  these  idle  tales  in  the  presence  of  all  the 
people?  Says  Phinees,  the  priest,  and  Adas,  the  teach- 
er, and  Haggai,  the  Levite,  to  the  rulers  of  the  syna- 
gogues, and  the  priests  and  the  Levites:  If  what  we 
have  said  and  seen  be  sinful,  behold,  we  are  before 
you;  do  to  us  as  seems  good  in  your  eyes.  And  they 
took  the  law  and  made  them  swear  upon  it  not  to  give 
any  more  an  account  of  these  matters  to  anyone.    And 


ACTS   OF   PILATE  371 

they  gave  them  to  eat  and  drink  and  sent  them  out  of 
the  city,  having  given  them  also  money,  and  three  men 
with  them;  and  they  sent  them  away  to  Galilee. 

And  these  men,  having  gone  into  Galilee,  the  chief 
priests  and  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  and  the  elders 
came  together  in  the  synagogue  and  locked  the  door, 
and  lamented  with  great  lamentation,  saying:  Is  this  a 
miracle  that  has  happened  in  Israel?  And  Annas  and 
Caiaphas  said:  Why  are  you  so  much  moved?  Why 
do  you  weep?  Do  you  not  know  that  his  disciples 
have  given  a  sum  of  gold  to  the  guards  of  the  tomb, 
and  have  instructed  them  to  say  that  an  angel  came 
down  and  rolled  away  the  stone  from  the  door  of  the 
tomb?  And  the  priests  and  elders  said:  Be  it  that  his 
disciples  have  stolen  his  body;  how  is  it  that  the  life 
has  come  into  his  body,  and  that  he  is  going  about  in 
Galilee?  And  they,  being  unable  to  give  an  answer 
to  these  things,  said,  after  great  hesitation:  It  is  not 
lawful  for  us  to  believe  the  uncircumcised. 

Chap.  15. — And  Nicodemus  stood  up,  and  stood  be- 
fore the  Sanhedrin,  saying:  You  say  well;  you  are  not 
ignorant,  you  people  of  the  Lord,  of  these  men  that 
come  down  from  Galilee,  that  they  fear  God,  and  are 
men  of  substance,  haters  of  covetousness,  men  of  peace; 
and  they  have  declared  with  an  oath,  we  saw  Jesus 
upon  the  mountain  Mamilch  with  his  disciples,  and 
he  taught  what  we  heard  from  him,  and  we  saw  him 
taken  up  into  heaven.  And  no  one  asked  them  in  what 
form  he  went  up.  For  assuredly,  as  the  book  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  taught  us,  Helias  also  was  taken  up 


372  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

into  heaven,  and  Elissaeus  cried  out  with  a  loud  voice, 
and  Helias  threw  his  sheepskin  upon  Elissaeus,  and 
Elissaeus  threw  his  sheepskin  upon  the  Jordan,  and 
crossed  and  came  into  Jericho.  And  the  children  of 
the  prophets  met  him  and  said,  O  Elissaeus,  where  is 
thy  master  Helias?  And  he  said.  He  has  been  taken 
up  into  heaven.  And  they  said  to  Elissaeus,  Has  not 
a  spirit  seized  him,  and  thrown  him  upon  one  of  the 
mountains?  But  let  us  take  our  servants  with  us  and 
seek  him.  And  they  persuaded  Elisssus,  and  he  went 
away  with  them.  And  they  sought  him  three  days,  and 
did  not  find  him;  and  they  knew  that  he  had  been 
taken  up.  And  now  listen  to  me,  and  let  us  send  into 
every  district  of  Israel  and  see,  lest,  perchance,  Christ 
has  been  taken  up  by  a  spirit  and  thrown  upon  one 
of  the  mountains.  And  this  proposal  pleased  all.  And 
they  sent  into  every  district  of  Israel  and  sought  Jesus, 
and  did  not  find  him;  but  they  found  Joseph  in  Ari- 
mathea,  and  no  one  dared  to  lay  hands  on  him. 

And  they  reported  to  the  elders  and  the  priests  and 
the  Levites:  We  have  gone  round  to  every  district  of 
Israel,  and  have  not  found  Jesus;  but  Joseph  we  have 
found  in  Arimathea.  And  hearing  about  Joseph  they 
were  glad  and  gave  glory  to  the  God  of  Israel.  And 
the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  and  the  priests  and  the 
Levites,  having  held  a  council  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  they  should  meet  with  Joseph,  took  a  piece  of 
paper  and  wrote  to  Joseph  as  follows : 

Peace  to  thee !  We  know  that  we  have  sinned  against 
God,  and  against  thee;  and  we  have  prayed  to  the  God 
of  Israel  that  thou  shouldst  deign  to  come  to  thy  fathers 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  373 

and  to  thy  children,  because  we  all  have  been  grieved. 
For,  having  opened  the  door,  we  did  not  find  thee. 
And  we  know  that  we  have  counseled  evil  counsel 
against  thee;  but  the  Lord  has  defended  thee,  and  the 
Lord  himself  has  scattered  to  the  winds  our  counsel 
against  thee,  O  honorable  father  Joseph. 

And  they  chose  from  all  Israel  seven  men,  friends 
of  Joseph,  whom,  also,  Joseph  himself  was  acquainted 
with;  and  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  and  the  priests 
and  the  Levites  say  to  them:  Take  notice;  if,  after  re- 
ceiving our  letter  he  read  it,  know  that  he  will  come 
with  you  to  us.  But  if  he  do  not  read  it,  know  that 
he  is  ill-disposed  towards  us.  And,  having  saluted  him 
in  peace,  return  to  us.  And  having  blest  the  men,  they 
dismissed  them.  And  the  men  came  to  Joseph  and  did 
reverence  to  him,  and  said  to  him:  Peace  to  thee  I  And 
he  said:  Peace  to  you  and  to  all  the  people  of  Israel! 
And  they  gave  him  the  roll  of  the  letter.  And  Joseph, 
having  received  it,  read  the  letter  and  rolled  it  up,  and 
blessed  God  and  said:  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God,  who 
has  delivered  Israel,  that  they  should  not  shed  inno- 
cent blood;  and  blessed  be  the  Lord,  who  sent  out  his 
angel  and  covered  me  under  his  wings.  And  he  set  a 
table  for  them:  and  they  ate  and  drank  and  slept  there. 

And  they  rose  up  early  and  prayed.  And  Joseph 
saddled  his  ass  and  set  out  with  the  men:  and  they 
came  to  the  holy  city  Jerusalem.  And  all  the  people 
met  Joseph  and  cried  out:  Peace  to  thee  in  thy  coming 
in!  And  he  said  to  all  the  people:  Peace  to  you!  and 
he  kissed  them.  And  the  people  prayed  with  Joseph, 
and  they  were  astonished  at  the  sight  of  him.     And 


374  THE    TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Nicodemus  received  him  into  his  house  and  made  a 
great  feast,  and  called  Annas  and  Caiaphas  and  the 
elders  and  the  priests  and  the  Levites  to  his  house. 
And  they  rejoiced,  eating  and  drinking  with  Joseph; 
and,  after  singing  hymns,  each  proceeded  to  his  own 
house.  But  Joseph  remained  in  the  house  of  Nico- 
demus. 

And  on  the  following  day,  which  was  the  prepara- 
tion, the  rulers  of  the  synagogue  and  the  priests  and 
the  Levites  went  early  to  the  house  of  Nicodemus; 
and  Nicodemus  met  them  and  said:  Peace  to  you! 
And  they  said:  Peace  to  thee  and  to  Joseph,  and 
to  all  thy  house  and  to  all  the  house  of  Joseph! 
And  he  brought  them  into  his  house.  And  all  the 
Sanhedrin  sat  down,  and  Joseph  sat  down  between 
Annas  and  Caiaphas;  and  no  one  dared  to  say  a  word 
to  him.  And  Joseph  said:  Why  have  you  called  me? 
And  they  signaled  to  Nicodemus  to  speak  to  Joseph. 
And  Nicodemus,  opening  his  mouth,  said  to  Joseph: 
Father,  thou  knowest  that  the  honorable  teachers  and 
the  priests  and  the  Levites  seek  to  learn  a  word  from 
thee.  And  Joseph  said:  Ask.  And  Annas  and  Caia- 
phas, having  taken  the  law,  made  Joseph  swear,  saying: 
Give  glory  to  the  God  of  Israel,  and  give  him  con- 
fession ;  for  Achar,  being  made  to  swear  by  the  prophet 
Jesus,  did  not  forswear  himself,  but  declared  unto  him 
all,  and  did  not  hide  a  word  from  him.  Do  thou  also, 
accordingly,  not  hide  from  us  to  the  extent  of  a  word. 
And  Joseph  said:  I  shall  not  hide  from  you  one  word. 
And  they  said  to  him :  With  grief  were  we  grieved  be- 
cause thou  didst  beg  the  body  of  Jesus  and  wrap  it  in 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  375 

clean  linen  and  lay  it  in  a  tomb.  And  on  account  of 
this  we  secured  thee  in  a  room  where  there  was  no 
window;  and  we  put  locks  and  seals  upon  the  doors, 
and  guards  kept  watching  where  thou  wast  locked  in. 
And  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  we  opened  and  found 
thee  not,  and  were  grieved  exceedingly;  and  astonish- 
ment fell  upon  all  the  people  of  the  Lord  until  yester- 
day.   And  now  relate  to  us  what  happened  to  thee. 

And  Joseph  said :  On  the  preparation,  about  the  tenth 
hour,  you  locked  me  up,  and  I  remained  all  the  Sab- 
bath. And  at  midnight,  as  I  was  standing  and  praying, 
the  room  where  you  locked  me  in  was  hung  up  by  the 
four  corners,  and  I  saw  a  light  like  lightning  into  my 
eyes.  And  I  was  afraid  and  fell  to  the  ground.  And 
some  one  took  me  by  the  hand  and  removed  me  from 
the  place  where  I  had  fallen;  and  moisture  of  water 
was  poured  from  my  head  even  to  my  feet,  and  a  smell 
of  perfumes  came  about  my  nostrils.  And  he  wiped 
my  face  and  kissed  me,  and  said  to  fne.  Fear  not,  Jo- 
seph: open  thine  eyes  and  see  who  it  is  that  speaks  to 
thee.  And,  looking  up,  I  saw  Jesus.  And  I  trembled 
and  thought  it  was  a  phantom;  and  I  said  the  com- 
mandments, and  he  said  them  with  me.  Even  so  you 
are  not  ignorant  that  a  phantom,  if  it  meet  anybody 
and  hear  the  commandments,  takes  to  flight.  And  see- 
ing that  he  said  them  with  me,  I  said  to  him.  Rabbi 
Helias.  And  he  said  to  me,  I  am  not  Helias.  And  I 
said  to  him.  Who  art  thou,  my  lord?  And  he  said  to 
me,  I  am  Jesus  whose  body  thou  didst  beg  from  Pilate ; 
and  thou  didst  clothe  me  with  clean  linen,  and  didst 
put  a  napkin  on  my  face,  and  didst  lay  me  in  thy  new 


376  THE   TRIAL   OF  JESUS 

tomb,  and  didst  roll  a  great  stone  to  the  door  of  the 
tomb.  And  I  said  to  him  that  was  speaking  to  me, 
Show  me  the  place  where  I  laid  thee.  And  he  carried 
me  away  and  showed  me  the  place  where  I  laid  him; 
and  the  linen  cloth  was  lying  in  it,  and  the  napkin  for 
his  face.  And  I  knew  that  it  was  Jesus.  And  he  took 
me  by  the  hand  and  placed  me,  though  the  doors  were 
locked,  in  the  middle  of  my  house,  and  led  me  away 
to  my  bed  and  said  to  me,  Peace  to  thee!  And  he 
kissed  me  and  said  to  me,  For  forty  days  go  not  forth 
out  of  thy  house;  for,  behold,  I  go  to  my  brethren  in 
Galilee. 

Chap.  i6. — And  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  and 
the  priests  and  the  Levites  when  they  heard  these  words 
from  Joseph,  became  as  dead,  and  fell  to  the  ground, 
and  fasted  until  the  ninth  hour.  And  Nicodemus,  along 
with  Joseph,  exhorted  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  the  priests 
and  the  Levites,  saying:  Rise  up  and  stand  upon  your 
feet,  and  taste  bread  and  strengthen  your  souls,  because 
to-morrow  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord.  And  they  rose 
up  and  prayed  to  God,  and  ate  and  drank,  and  departed 
every  man  to  his  own  house. 

And  on  the  Sabbath  our  teachers  and  the  priests  and 
Levites  sat  questioning  each  other  and  saying:  What 
is  this  wrath  that  has  come  upon  us?  for  we  know  his 
father  and  mother.  Levi,  a  teacher,  says :  I  know  that 
his  parents  fear  God,  and  do  not  withdraw  themselves 
from  the  prayers,  and  give  the  tithes  thrice  a  year. 
And  when  Jesus  was  born  his  parents  brought  him  to 
this  place  and  gave  sacrifices  and  burnt  offerings  to 


ACTS   OF   PILATE  377 

God.  And  when  the  great  teacher,  Symeon,  took  him 
into  his  arms,  he  said.  Now  thou  sendest  away  thy  ser- 
vant, Lord,  according  to  thy  word,  in  peace;  for  mine 
eyes  have  seen  thy  salvation,  which  thou  hast  prepared 
before  the  face  of  all  the  peoples;  a  light  for  the  reve- 
lation of  the  Gentiles,  and  the  glory  of  thy  people 
Israel.  And  Symeon  blessed  them,  and  said  to  Mary 
his  mother,  I  give  thee  good  news  about  this  child. 
And  Mary  said.  It  is  well,  my  lord.  And  Symeon  said 
to  her,  It  is  well;  behold,  he  lies  for  the  fall  and  the 
rising  again  of  many  in  Israel,  and  for  a  sign  spoken 
against;  and  of  thee  thyself  a  sword  shall  go  through 
the  soul,  in  order  that  the  reasoning  of  many  hearts  may 
be  revealed. 

They  say  to  the  teacher  Levi:  How  knowest  thou 
these  things?  Levi  says  to  them:  Do  you  not  know 
that  from  him  I  learned  the  law?  The  Sanhedrin  say 
to  him:  We  wish  to  see  thy  father.  And  they  sent  for 
his  father.  And  they  asked  him,  and  he  said  to  them: 
Why  have  you  not  believed  my  son?  The  blessed  and 
just  Symeon  himself  taught  him  the  law.  The  San- 
hedrin says  to  Rabbi  Levi:  Is  the  word  that  you  have 
Said  true?  And  he  said:  It  is  true.  And  the  rulers  of 
the  synagogue,  and  the  priests  and  the  Levites  said  to 
themselves :  Come,  let  us  send  into  Galilee  to  the  three 
men  that  came  and  told  about  his  teaching  and  his 
taking  up,  and  let  them  tell  us  how  they  saw  him  taken 
up.  And  this  saying  pleased  all.  And  they  sent  away 
the  three  men  who  had  already  gone  away  into  Galilee 
with  them;  and  they  say  to  them:  Say  to  Rabbi  Adas 
and  Rabbi  Phinees  and  Rabbi  Haggai,  Peace  to  you 


378  THE   TRIAL    OF   JESUS 

and  all  who  are  with  youl  A  great  inquiry  having 
taken  place  in  the  Sanhedrin,  we  have  been  sent  to 
you  to  call  you  to  this  holy  place,  Jerusalem. 

And  the  men  set  out  into  Galilee  and  found  them 
sitting  and  considering  the  law:  and  they  saluted  them 
in  peace.  And  the  men  who  were  in  Galilee  said  to 
those  who  had  come  to  them:  Peace  unto  all  Israel! 
And  they  said:  Peace  to  you!  And  they  again  said 
to  them:  Why  have  you  come?  And  those  who  had 
been  sent  said:  The  Sanhedrin  call  you  to  the  holy  city 
Jerusalem.  And  when  the  men  heard  that  they  were 
sought  by  the  Sanhedrin  they  prayed  to  God,  and  re- 
clined with  the  men  and  ate  and  drank,  and  rose  up 
and  set  out  in  peace  to  Jerusalem. 

And  on  the  following  day  the  Sanhedrin  sat  in  the 
synagogue,  and  asked  them,  saying:  Did  you  really  see 
Jesus  sitting  on  the  mountain  Mamilch  teaching  his 
eleven  disciples,  and  did  you  see  him  taken  up?  And 
the  men  answered  them  and  said :  As  we  saw  him  taken 
up,  so  also  we  said.  > 

Annas  says:  Take  them  away  from  one  another  and 
let  us  see  whether  their  account  agrees.  And  they  took 
them  away  from  one  another.  And  first  they  call  Adas 
and  say  to  him:  How  didst  thou  see  Jesus  taken  up? 
Adas  says:  While  he  was  yet  sitting  on  the  mountain 
Mamilch  and  teaching  his  disciples,  we  saw  a  cloud 
overshadowing  both  him  and  his  disciples.  And  the 
cloud  took  him  up  into  heaven,  and  his  disciples  lay 
upon  their  faces  upon  the  earth.  And  they  call  Phi- 
nees,  the  priest,  and  ask  him  also,  saying:  How  didst 
thou  see  Jesus  taken  up?    And  he  spoke  in  like  manner. 


ACTS   OF   PILATE 


379 


And  they  again  asked  Haggai,  and  he  spoke  in  like 
manner.  And  the  Sanhedrin  said:  The  law  of  Moses 
holds:  At  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  every  word  shall 
be  established.  Buthem,  a  teacher,  says:  It  is  written 
in  the  law,  And  Enoch  walked  with  God,  and  is  not, 
because  God  took  him.  Jairus,  a  teacher,  said:  And 
the  death  of  holy  Moses  we  have  heard  of,  and  have 
not  seen  it;  for  it  is  written  in  the  law  of  the  Lord,  and 
Moses  died  from  the  mouth  of  the  Lord,  and  no  man 
knoweth  of  his  sepulchre  unto  this  day.  And  Rabbi 
Levi  said :  Why  did  Rabbi  Symeon  say,  w^hen  he  saw 
Jesus,  "  Behold,  he  lies  for  the  fall  and  rising  again 
of  many  in  Israel,  and  for  a  sign  spoken  against"? 
And  Rabbi  Isaac  said:  It  is  written  in  the  law.  Behold, 
I  send  my  messenger  before  thy  face,  who  shall  go 
before  thee  to  keep  thee  in  every  good  way,  because 
my  name  has  been  called  upon  him. 

Then  Annas  and  Caiaphas  said:  Rightly  have  you 
said  what  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  that  no  one 
saw  the  death  of  Enoch,  and  no  one  has  named  the 
death  of  Moses;  but  Jesus  was  tried  before  Pilate, 
and  we  saw  him  receiving  blows  and  spittings  on  his 
face,  and  the  soldiers  put  about  him  a  crown  of  thorns, 
and  he  was  scourged  and  received  sentence  from  Pi- 
late, and  was  crucified  upon  the  Cranium,  and  two  rob- 
bers with  him;  and  they  gave  him  to  drink  vinegar 
with  gall,  and  Longinus,  the  soldier,  pierced  his  side 
with  a  spear;  and  Joseph,  our  honorable  father,  begged 
his  body,  and  he  says  he  is  risen;  and  as  the  three  teach- 
ers say.  We  saw  him  taken  up  into  heaven;  and  Rabbi 
Levi  has  given  evidence  of  what  was  said  by  Rabbi 


38o  THE   TRIAL   OF   JESUS 

Symeon,  and  that  he  said,  Behold,  he  lies  for  the  fall 
and  rising  again  of  many  in  Israel,  and  for  a  sign 
spoken  against.  And  all  the  teachers  said  to  all  the 
people  of  the  Lord:  If  this  was  from  the  Lord,  and 
is  wonderful  in  your  eyes,  knowing  you  shall  know, 
O  house  of  Jacob,  that  it  is  written.  Cursed  is  every 
one  that  hangeth  upon  a  tree.  And  another  scripture 
teaches:  The  gods  which  have  not  made  the  heaven 
and  the  earth  shall  be  destroyed.  And  the  priests  and 
the  Levites  said  to  each  other:  If  this  memorial  be 
until  the  year  that  is  called  Jobel,  know  that  it  shall 
endure  forever,  and  he  hath  raised  for  himself  a  new 
people.  Then  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue,  and  the 
priests  and  the  Levites,  announced  to  all  Israel,  saying: 
Cursed  is  that  man  who  shall  worship  the  work  of 
man's  hand,  and  cursed  is  the  man  who  shall  worship 
the  creatures  more  than  the  Creator.  And  all  the  peo- 
ple said.  Amen,  amen. 

And  all  the  people  praised  the  Lord,  and  said: 
Blessed  is  the  Lord,  who  hath  given  rest  to  his  people 
Israel,  according  to  all  that  he  hath  spoken;  there  hath 
not  fallen  one  word  of  every  good  word  of  his  that 
he  spoke  to  Moses,  his  servant.  May  the  Lord  our 
God  be  with  us,  as  he  was  with  our  fathers;  let  him 
not  destroy  us.  And  let  him  not  destroy  us,  that  we 
may  incline  our  hearts  to  him,  that  we  may  walk  in 
all  his  ways,  that  we  may  keep  his  commandments  and 
his  judgments  which  he  commanded  to  our  fathers. 
And  the  Lord  shall  be  for  a  king  over  all  the  earth 
in  that  day;  and  there  shall  be  one  Lord,  and  his  name 
one.    The  Lord  is  our  king;  he  shall  save  us.    There 


ACTS   OF    PILATE  381 

is  none  like  thee,  O  Lord.  Great  art  thou,  O  Lord, 
and  great  is  thy  name.  By  thy  power  heal  us,  O  Lord, 
and  we  shall  be  healed;  save  us,  O  Lord,  and  we  shall 
be  saved,  because  we  are  thy  lot  and  heritage.  And 
the  Lord  will  not  leave  his  people,  for  his  great  name's 
sake;  for  the  Lord  has  begun  to  make  us  into  his 
people. 

And  all,  having  sung  praises,  went  away  each  man 
to  his  own  house  glorifying  God;  for  his  is  the  glory 
forever  and  ever.    Amen. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


The  Bible. 
The  Talmud. 


The  Mishna. 


MAIN   authorities 

English  Authorized  Version  of  1611. 
Babylonian  Recension,  translated  into  Eng- 
lish by  Michael  L.  Rodkinson.     New  Tal- 
mud   Publishing    Company,    New    York, 
1896. 

Edition  of  Surenhusius.  Amsterdam, 
1 698-1 703.  Consulted  by  the  author  in 
the  Astor  Library,  New  York  City. 


MINOR   AUTHORITIES 

Abbott.  Jesus   of   Nazareth,    by   Lyman   Abbott. 

Harper  Brothers,  New  York,  1882. 
Andrews.  The  Life  of  Our  Lord,  by  Samuel  J.  An- 

drews.     Charles    Scribner's    Sons,    New 

York,   1906. 
Baring-Gould.  Curious  Myths  of  the  Middle  Ages,  by  S. 

Baring-Gould.     Roberts  Brothers,  Boston, 

1880. 
Baur.  The  Church  History  of  the  First  Three 

Centuries,   by   F.    C.    Baur.      Translated 

from  German  by  A.  Mendles.     London, 

1878. 
Benny.  The  Criminal  Code  of  the  Jews,  by  Philip 

Berger  Benny.     Smith,  Elder  &  Company, 

London,  1880. 

383 


384 
Blackstone. 


Cicero. 
Deutsch. 

dollinger. 

Edersheim. 

Farrar. 

Fisher. 

Geib. 

Geikie. 

Gibbon. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  England, 
by  Sir  William  Blackstone.  Edited  and 
annotated  by  Thomas  M.  Cooley.  Cal- 
laghan  &  Company,   Chicago,   1884. 

M.  Tullii  Ciceronis  orationes.  Whittaker 
&  Company,  London,   1855. 

The  Talmud,  by  Emanuel  Deutsch.  The 
Jewish  Publication  Society  of  America, 
Philadelphia,  1896. 

The  Gentile  and  the  Jew,  by  John  J.  I. 
Dollinger.  Two  volumes.  Gibbings  & 
Company,  London,  1906. 

The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah, 
by  Alfred  Edersheim.  Two  volumes. 
Longmans,  Green  &  Company,  New  York, 
1905. 

The  Life  of  Christ,  by  Frederic  W.  Far- 
rar. E.  P.  Button  &  Company,  New 
York,  1883. 

The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  by  George 
P.  Fisher.  Charles  Scrlbner's  Sons,  New 
York,  1906. 

Geschichte  des  romischen  Criminalpro- 
cesses,  von  Dr.  Gustav  Geib.  Weid- 
mann'sche  Buchhandlung.    Leipzig,  1842. 

The  Life  and  Words  of  Christ,  by  Cun- 
ningham Geikie.  Two  volumes.  Henry 
S.  King  &  Company.     London,  1877. 

The  History  of  the  Decline  and  Fall  of 
the  Roman  Empire,  by  Edward  Gibbon. 
With    notes    by    Rev.    H.    H.    Milman. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


385 


Phillips,    Sampson   &    Company,    Boston, 

1853- 
Graetz.  History  of  the  Jews,  by  Heinrich  Graetz. 

Six  volumes.     The  Jewish  Publication  So- 
ciety of  America,  Philadelphia,  1891. 
Greenleaf.  The    Testimony    of    the    Evangelists,    by 

Simon  Greenleaf.      Soney  &  Sage,   New- 
ark, N.  J.,  1903. 
Greenidge.  The  Legal  Procedure  of  Cicero's  Time, 

by  A.  H.  J.  Greenidge.     Stevens  &  Sons, 

London,  1901. 
Harnack.  Reden  und  Aufsatzc,  von  Adolf  Harnack. 

J.  Ricker'sche  Verlagsbuchhandlung,  Gies- 

sen,  1904. 
HiGGlNS.  Anacalypsis:  An  Enquiry  into  the  Origin 

of  Languages,  Nations  and  Religions,  by 

Godfrey   Higgins.      Longman,    Brown   & 

Longman,  London,  1827. 
Hodge.  Systematic  Theology,  by  Charles  Hodge. 

Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  New  York,  1892. 
Innes.  The  Trial  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  A.  Taylor 

Innes.     T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edinburgh,  1905. 
JosEPHUS.  The  Works  of  Flavius  Josephus,  Whis- 

ton's  Translation. 
JosT.  Geschichte   des   Judenthums,   von    I.    M. 

Jost.      Dorffling    und    Francke,    Leipzig, 

1857. 
Juvenal.  The  Satires  of  Juvenal.     George  Bell  & 

Sons,  London,  1904. 
Keim.  Jesus  of  Nazara,  by  Theodor  Kelm.     Six 

volumes.     Williams  &  Norgate,  London, 

1883. 


386 
Lardner. 

Lemann. 


LiVY. 
LOISY. 

Mendelsohn. 

MOMMSEN. 

Montesquieu. 
Paley. 

Rabbinowicz. 

Renan. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Works  of  Nathaniel  Lardner.     Ten  vol- 
umes.    William  Ball,  London,  1838. 
Valeur    de    I'assemblee    qui    prononga    la 
peine    de    mort   contre    Jesus-Christ,    par 
MM.    Lemann.      Translated    from    the 
French  into  English  under  the  title  "  Jesus 
Before   the   Sanhedrin,"    by   Prof.   Julius 
Magath,  of  Oxford,  Ga.,  in  1899. 
The  History  of  Rome,  by  Titus  LIvius. 
George  Bell  &  Sons,  London,  1906. 
Les    Evangiles   Synoptiques,    par   Alfred 
Loisy.     Librairie  Fishbacher,  Paris,  1907. 
The  Criminal  Jurisprudence  of  the  Ancient 
Hebrews,   by   S.    Mendelsohn.      M.   Cur- 
lander,  Baltimore,   1891. 
The  Provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire,  by 
Theodor      Mommsen.        Two      v'olumes. 
Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  New  York,  1899. 
De  I'Esprit  Des  Lois,  par  Montesquieu. 
Garnier  Freres,  Paris,  1905. 
Evidences    of    Christianity,    by    William 
Paley.    The  Religious  Tract  Society,  Lon- 
don,  1794. 

Legislation  Criminelle  du  Talmud,  par  I. 
J.  M.  Rabbinowicz.  Chez  Tauteur,  Paris, 
1876. 

Histoire  des  origines  du  christianisme, 
par  Joseph  Ernest  Renan.  Paris,  1863. 
Livres  1-6:  i.  Vie  de  Jesus.  2.  Les 
apotres.  3.  Saint  Paul.  4.  L' Antichrist. 
5.  Les  evangiles  et  la  seconde  generation 
chretienne.     6.  L'eglise  chretienne. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


387 


RosADl.  The  Trial  of  Jesus,  by  Giovanni  Rosadi. 

Dodd,    Mead   &   Company,    New   York, 

1905. 
Salvador.  Histoire  des  Institutions  de  MoTse,  par  J. 

Salvador.       Michel    Levy-Freres,     Paris, 

1862. 
ScHURER.  The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus 

Christ,  by  Emil  Schiirer.     Charles  Scrib- 

ner's  Sons,  New  York,  1906. 
Stephen.  Liberty,    Equality,    Fraternity,   by   James 

Fitzjames  Stephen.     Henry  Holt  &  Com- 
pany, New  York,  1873. 
Suetonius.  The  Lives  of  the  Twelve  Caesars,  by  C. 

Suetonius    Tranquillus.      George    Bell    & 

Sons,  London,  1906. 

Tacitus.  The  Works  of  Tacitus.     American  Book 

Company,  New  York,  1904. 
Wise.  The  Martyrdom  of  Jesus,  by  Isaac  M. 

Wise.     The  Bloch  Publishing  and  Print- 
ing   Company,     Cincinnati    &     Chicago, 
1888. 
In  addition  to  the  above,  many  other  authorities  have 
been  consulted  in  the  preparation  of  the  two  volumes  of  this 
work.     Quotations  from  them  are  frequently  found  In  the 
text,  and  citations  are  given  in  the  notes.     The  author,  in 
closing  the  article,  entitled  "  Bibliography,"  wishes  to  ex- 
press his  sense  of  great  indebtedness  and  appreciation  to  the 
numerous  very  valuable  encyclopedias  that  adorn  the  shelves 
of  the  various  libraries  of  New  York  City;  and  especially  to 
The  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  published  by  Funk  &  Wagnalls, 
New  York  and  London,  1901. 


INDEX 


Abarbanel,  Isaac,  on  the  Sanhedrin, 

I,  io6 

Ab-beth-din,    vice-president    of  the 

Sanhedrin,  I,  Ii2 
Abbott,   Lyman,   on   the   scribes  of 

the  Sanhedrin,  I,  158 
Acts  of  Pilate,  the  Apocryphal, 
modern  criticism  of,  II,  327 
discovery  of,  II,  327 
Lardner   on    the    authenticity   of, 

II,  328  seq. 

Tischendorf  on  the  authenticity  of, 

II,  345  ^^t- 
antiquity  of,  II,  351 
text  of,  II,  351  seq. 
^butius,  Publius,  part  of,  in  the  ex- 
posure of  Bacchanalian  orgies, 
II,  271  seq. 
-Sldile,  Roman,  judicial   powers  of, 

"'  36 

^sculapius,  Graeco-Roman  divinity, 
II,  198 

Akiba,  Jewish  rabbi,  Mishna  sys- 
tematized by,  I,  79 

Albanus,  Roman  governor,  his  de- 
position of  Albanus,  II,  296 

Alcmene,  myth  of  Zeus  and,  II,  265 

Alexander,  Jewish  Alabarch,  bio- 
graphical note  on,  II,  299 

Alexander  III,  pope,  genuineness  of 
"true  cross"  attested  by  bull  of, 
11.63 

Alexandrian    MS.   of    the    Bible,  I, 

67 


Ananias     ben     Nebedeus,     Jewish 

priest,     biographical    note    on, 

II,  299 
family  of,  cursed  in  Talmud,  II, 

302 
Ananos.     See  Annas 
Ananus,  son  of  Annas,  Jewish  high 

priest,    biographical    note    on, 

II,  296 
Anathemas,     Jewish,     against     the 

Christians,  II,  307,  308 
Anaxagoras,  Greek  philosopher,  on 

the  deification  of  natural  forces, 

n,  225 
his  exposure  of  the  divination  of 

Lampon,  II,  226 
Annanias,  author  of  "  Acts  of  Pilate," 

Annas  (Ananos),  Jewish  high  priest 
examination  of  Christ   before,   I, 

238-247 
deposition  of,  by  Gratus,  I,  244; 

II,  20 
Christ  examined  in  house  of,  I,  256 
biographical  note  on,  II,  295 
legendary  examination  of  Joseph 
of  Arimathea,  II,  374,  376 
Antecedent  Warning,  peculiar  pro- 
vision of  Hebrew  Criminal  Law 
regarding,  I,  147-152 
Antistius,   L.,   Roman    tribune,  im- 
peachment of  Julius  Csesar  by, 
II,  46 
Antoninus    Pius,   Roman   emperor, 
persecution    of    Christians    by, 
11,78 

389 


390 


INDEX 


Aphrodisia,  rites  of,  II,  265 
Aphrodite,  Greek  divinity,  patroness 

of  prostitutes,  II,  265 
Aquillius,  Manlius,  Roman  governor, 

trial  of,  before  the  Comitia,  II, 

40 
Antonius,  Marcus,  Roman  advocate, 

defense  of,  of  ManHus  AquilHus, 

II,  40 
Aristotle,  Greek  philosopher,  on  the 

licentiousness     of    Sparta,     II, 

241 
Arnold,    Matthew,    on    despair    of 

Roman  people,  II,  286 
Arnobius,  Numidian  writer,  on   the 

familiar    treatment    of    Roman 

gods,  II,  218 
on    the    lewdness   of  the  Roman 

drama,  II,  267 
Art,  effect  of,  in  corruption  of  Roman 

and  Greek  morals,  II,  268 
Aspasia,    mistress    of    Pericles,    II, 

242 
Athens,   domestic  licentiousness  of, 

II,  240,  241 
Athronges,    Jewish    peasant,    revolt 

of,  II,  110 
Atticus,  Numerius,  Roman  senator, 

attests    ascent    of  Augustus    to 

heaven,  II,  234 
Atys,  myth  of,  represented  on  Greek 

and  Roman  stage,  II,  267 
Augurs,  Roman  priests,  II,  204 
spectators    at   licentious    dramas, 

II,  267 
Augury,  modes  of,  II,  211 
Augustus  Caesar,  Roman  emperor 
reign  and  policy  of,  II,  25,  26 
care  of  profligate  daughter  Julia, 

11,  83 
belief  of,  in  omens,  II,  215 
his  chastisement  of  Neptune,  II, 

222 
deification  of,  II,  233 


Aurelius  Antoninus,  Marcus,  Roman 
emperor  and  philosopher 
persecution    of    Christianity     by, 

II,  78 
adoration  of  Serapis  by,  II,  217 
on  suicide,  II,  232 

B 

Bacchanalian  orgies,  Livy's  account 

of,  II,  270-283 
Bacchus,    Roman    deity,    licentious 

festivals  of,  II,  265 
Barabbas   (Bar  Abbas)   released   by 

Pilate,  II,  131,  138,  363 
Baring-Gould,  S.,  on  the  symbolism 

of  the  Cross,  II,  66 
Baths,  Roman,  splendor  of,  II,  247 
Beheading  of   criminals  under  He- 
brew Law,  I,  91,  99 
Benny  on  the  Talmud,  I,  75 
on  internment  in  Jewish  Cities  of 
Refuge,  I,  98,  99 
Bernhardt,  Sarah,  insulted  in  Que- 
bec, II,  182 
Bernice  (Berenice),  Jewish  queen,  a 
suppliant  before  Florus,  II,  100 
Bible,  the 

manuscripts  of,  I,  67 
purity  of  text  of,  I,  69 
anthropomorphism  of,  I,  336-338 
influence  of,  II,  4,  5 
"  Birchath  Hamminim"  Jewish  im- 
precation    against     Christians, 
II,  308 
Blasphemy 

discussion  of  charge  against  Christ 

of,  I,  193-209 
Hebrew  definition  of,  I,   199-201 
classification  of,  I,  203 
Boethus,  family  of,  cursed  in  Tal- 
mud, II,  301.     See  also  Simon 
Bossuet,  Jacques  B.,  French  divine,  on 
the  citizenship  of  Christ,  II,  io3 


INDEX 


391 


Brothels,  Roman,  dedication  of,  to 
Venus,  II,  265 

Burning  of  criminals  under  He- 
brew Law,  I,  92,  99 


Caesar,  Caius  Julius 

loth  legion  cowed   by,  II,   169 
superstition  of,  II,  205 
disbelief  of,  in  immortality,  II,  229 
deification  of,  II,  233 
divorces  of,  II,  238 
profligacy  of,  II,  238,  239 
unnatural   practices  attributed  to, 
II,  263 
Caiaphas,  Jewish  high  priest 

accusation      of,     against     Christ, 

before  Sanhedrin,  I,  190 
erratic    conduct    of,    at    trial    of 

Christ,  I,  290 
role  of,  in  trial  of  Jesus   before 

Pilate,  II,  loi 
biographical  note  on,  II,  295 
legendary  examination  of  Joseph 
of  Arimathea  by,  II,  374,  376 
Caligula,  Roman  emperor 

deifies  his  sister  Drusilla,  II,  234 
depravity  of,  II,  234 
Cantharus,  family  of,  cursed  in  Tal- 
mud, II,  301 
Capital  Crimes  under  Hebrew  Crim- 
inal Law,  classification  and  pun- 
ishments of,  I,  91-101 
Carlyle,    Thomas,    on    the    life    of 

Christ,  II,  187 
Cassius,   Dion,  on   the    labeling    of 

Roman  criminals,  I,  57 
Cato,  Marcus  Porcius 

contempt  of,  for  the  haruspices, 

II,  228 
suicide  of,  II,  232 
divorces  of,  II,  237 
contempt  of,  for  Lucullus,  II,  246 


Cato,  Marcus  Porcius 

merciless  treatment  of  slaves,  II, 
251 
Catulus,    Quintus,    dream    of,    pre- 
saging  accession    of  Augustus,  ^ 
II,  214 
Chanania,  Jewish  scribe,  biograph- 
ical note  on,  II,  314 
Chanania  ben  Chiskia,  Jewish  scribe, 

biographical  note  on,  II,  309 
Charles  IX,  king  of  France,  bloody 

sweat  of,  I,  59,  60 
Christianity,  conflict  of,  with  Roman 

paganism,  I,  16;  II,  76-79 
Chrysostom,  St.  John,  on  the  legen- 
dary desire  of  Tiberius  to  deify 
Christ,  II,  344 
Cicero,  Marcus  Tullius 

dream  of,  presaging  accession  of 

Augustus,  II,  215 
on  Roman  superstition,  II,  221 
on  Roman  skepticism,  II,  227 
his  divorce  of  his  wife,  II,  237 
witticism   of,    up>on    Caesar's   gal- 
lantries, II,  239 
Cities  of  Refuge,  Jewish,  internment 

in,  I,  96-99 
Claudia,  granddaughter  of  Augustus 
marriage  of,  to  Pilate,  II,  82 
dream    of,    regarding    Jesus,    II, 

133,  355 
Claudius,       Roman       commander, 

throws  sacred   pullets  into  the 

sea,  II,  222 
Clement  V,  pope,  and  the  Talmud, 

I,  88,  89 
Coliseum,  the,  description  of,  II,  260 
Comitia  Centuriata,  public  criminal 

trials  in,  II,  37-43 
miscarriage  of  justice  in,  11,38-42 
Commodus,  Roman  emperor,  deifi- 
cation of,  II,  234 
Consul,  Roman,  judicial  powers  of, 

11,36 


392 


INDEX 


Coke,  Sir  Edward,  contrast  between 
Pilate  and,  II,  170-172 

Cornelius,  son  of  Ceron,  the  elder, 
biographical  note  on,  II,  321 

Cross,  Roman  instrument  of  death, 
erroneous  representations  of,  II, 

56 
forms  of,  II,  62 
use  of,  by  various  races  as  religious 

symbol,  II,  64-67 
"Cross,  the  True,"  legends  of,  II, 

62,  63 
Crucifixion,  Plutarch  on,  I,  56 
history  of,  II,  54,  55 
mode  of,  II,  55 
pathology  of,  II,  58,  59 
Roman   citizens  exempt  from,  II, 

54 
of  Jesus,  II,  365 
Cybele,    Roman    deity,    importation 
of,  from  Phrygia,  II,  199 

D 

Deification  of  Roman  emperors, 
ceremony  of,  II,  234 

Dembowski,  Bishop,  and  the  Tal- 
mud, I,  88 

Demosthenes,  on  the  women  of 
Athens,  II,  242 

Derembourg,  Joseph,  on  the  Jewish 
priestly  families,  II,  294 

Deutsch,  Emanuel,  on  the  Talmud, 
I.  74,  80 
on  the  existence  of  the  Great  San- 
hedrin  at  the  time  of  Christ,  I, 
179,  181 

Diocletian,  Roman  emperor,  deifi- 
cation of,  II,  233 

Divination,  Roman  modes  of,  II, 
211 

Divorce,    among    the    Romans,    II, 
236-239 
trivial  pretexts  for,  II,  237,  238 


Dollinger 

on  the  Roman  view  of  Christianity 

and  high  treason,  II,  77 
on  divorce,  and  the  profligacy  of 

Roman  matrons,  II,  236 
on  the  effect  of  art  in  corrupting 

Greek    and    Roman    manners, 

II,  268 
Domitian,    Roman     emperor,    self- 
deification    of,    II,    235 
Doras,    Jewish    elder,    biographical 

note  on,  II,  321 
Dorotheas,  son  of  Nathanael,  Jewish 

elder,  biographical  note  on,  II, 

321 
Drama,      the,      licentiousness      of, 

among  Greeks  and  Romans,  II, 

266 
Dreams,    interpretation    of,    among 

Romans   and   Greeks,   II,   213, 

214 
Druidism,  annihilation  of,  II,  73 
Drusilla,  deified  by  Caligula,  II,  234 
Dysmas,  legendary  name  of  one  of 

thieves  crucified  with  Jesus,  11, 

364 


Edersheim,  Alfred,  on  the  existence 
of  the  Great  Sanhedrin  at  the 
time  of  Christ,  I,  177  / 

Elders,  Jewish  chamber  of.  See 
Sanhedrin 

Eleazar  ben  Partah,  Jewish  scribe, 
biographical  note  on,  M,  314 

Eleazar,  son  of  Annas,  Jewish  high 
priest,  biographical  note  on,  II, 
295 

Eleazar,  son  of  Simon  Boethus, 
Jewish  high  priest,  biographical 
note  on,  II,  297 

Eliezer,  Jewish  rabbi,  Mishna  ampli- 
fied by,  I,  79 


INDEX 


393 


Ellicott,    Dr.,   on    the   character   of 

Pilate,  II,  91 
Epicurus,  Greek  philosopher,  II,  229 
Epicureanism,       degradation         of, 

among  Romans,  II,  230 
Epitaphs,     irreligious     Roman,     II, 

222,  285 
Epulos,  Roman  priests,  II,  204 
Etruria,   importation    of  haruspices 

from,  II,  210 
Eusebius,  reference  of,  to  the  "Acts 

of  Pilate,"  II,  329,  333,  344 
Evhemere,  on  the  Greek  gods,  II, 

225 
Evangelists 

honesty  of,  I,  12 
character  of,  I,  13,  14 
motives  of,  I,  15 
ability  of,  I,  18 
candor  of,  I,  20-24 
discrepancies  of,  I,  29-33 
corroborative   elements   of  narra- 
tive of,  I,  34-39 
impossibility  of  collusion   among, 

I.  38 
conformity   of  narrative  of,   with 

human  experience,  I,  39 
coincidence  of  testimony  of,  with 

collateral  circumstances,  I,  52- 

narrative  of,  confirmed  by  profane 
historians,  I,  56,  57 
Evidence,    rules   of,    under   Hebrew 
Law,  I,  144,  145 


False  swearing  under  Hebrew 
Criminal  Law,  I,  93 

Fathers,  Church,  writings  of  the,  I, 
68 

Fecenia,  Hispala,  part  of,  in  ex- 
posure of  Bacchanalian  orgies, 
II,  271  seq. 


Felix,  Minucius,  Christian  father, 
controversy  of,  with  pagans  on 
adoration  of  the  cross,  II,   64 

Flagellation,  under  Hebrew  Crim- 
inal, I,  94 

Flamens,  Roman  priests,  II,  204 
spectators   at    licentious    dramas, 
II,  267 


Gallic,  pro-consul  of  Achaia,  atti- 
tude of,  toward  Jewish  clamors, 
II,  107 

Gamaliel,  Jewish  rabbi,  bio- 
graphical note  on,  II,  304 

Ganymede,  depraving  influence  of 
myth  of  rape  of,  II,  262 

Gavazzi,  Alessandro,  sermons  of,  in 
Coliseum,  II,  262 

Geib,  on  the  status  of  Judea,  II,  16 
on  the  courts  of  the  Roman  prov- 
inces, II,  32 

Geikie,  Cunningham,  on   the    non- 
existence  of  the   Sanhedrin    at 
the  time  of  Christ,  I,  181 
on   the  character  of  the  trial   of 
Jesus  before  Sanhedrin,  I,  184 

Gemara,  the  Jerusalem  and   Baby- 
lonian recensions  of,  I,  81 
relation  of,  to  Mishna,  I,  83.     See 
also  Talmud   and   Mishna 

Germanicus,  Caesar 

temples  profaned  on  death  of,  II, 

222 
exposure  of  children    born  on  day 
of  death  of,  II,  254 

Gestas,  legendary  name  of  one  of 
thieves     crucified     with     Jesus, 

n,  364 

Golden  House  of  Nero,  II,  246 
Gibbon,  Edward 

on   the   jurisdiction   of  the   great 
Sanhedrin,  I,  120 


394 


INDEX 


Gibbon,  Edward 

on  the  laws  of  the  Twelve  Tables, 

11,53 

on  the  extent  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, II,  196 
Gladiatorial  games 

origin  of,  II,  256 

gigantic  scale  of,  in  Rome,  II,  256, 

257 
conduct  of,  II,  258 
Gospels,  the,  admissibility  of,  as  legal 

evidence,  I,  5-12 
Governors,   Roman,  powers  of,   II, 
24,  27,  28,  29 
forbidden  to  take  wives  to  their 
provinces,  II,  84,  85 
Graetz,   Heinrich,  on  the  existence 
of  the  Sanhedrin  at  the  time  of 
Christ,  I,  181 
Greeks 

superstition  of,  II,  223 
philosophy  of,  II,  229 
depraving    effect    on    Romans    of 
art,  literature,  and  manners  of, 
II,  240-244,  268,  284 
Bacchanalian  orgies  introduced  by, 

II,  270 
invectiveof  Juvenal  against,  11,284 
Greenidge,  on  the  interpretation  of 
native    law     by     Roman     pro- 
praetors, II,  31 
Greenleaf,  Simon,  American  jurist, 
on  the  admissibility  of  the  Scrip- 
tures as  legal  evidence,  I,  6-9 
on  the  testimony  of  the  Evangel- 
ists, I,  10,  II 
on  the  legal  j  ustice  of  the  conviction 
of  Christ  for  blasphemy,  I,  209 

H 

Hacksab  ben  Tzitzith,  Jewish 
elder,  biographical  note  on,  II, 
320 


"Hall  of  Hewn  Stones,"  sessions  of 
Sanhedrin  in,  I,  117 

Haruspices,  Roman,  account  of, 
II,  210 

Helcias,  Jewish  treasurer,  biograph- 
ical  note  on,   II,  300 

Helena,  Empress,  legendary  dis- 
covery of  "true  cross"  by,  II,  62 

Hercules,  Greek  divinity,  burning  of, 
represented  on  Greek  and  Ro- 
man stage,  II,  267 

Herder,  Johann,  on  the  character 
of  Christ,  II,  187 

Herod  Antipas,  character  of,  II,  120 
his   treatment  of  Jesus,  II,   122- 
127 

Herod  I,  the  Great,  last  will  of,  II, 
119,  120 
arbitrary     changes     of,     in     high 
priesthood,  II,  293 

Hetairai,  status  of,  in  Athens,  II, 
242,243 

High  priest,   Jewish,   vestments   of, 
I,   158 
abuses  in  appointment  of,  II,  293 

Hillel,  Jewish  doctor,  inspiration  of, 
I,  84 

Hillel,  School  of,  and  the  Mishna, 

I,     79 
dissensions    of,    with     School     of 

Shammai,  II,  309 
Homer,  the  bible  of  the  Greeks,  II, 

264 
Honorius  IV,  pope,  and  the  Talmud, 

Horatius,  trial  of,  before  the  Comitia 
Centuriata,  II,  40 

I 

Ignatius,  St.,  martyrdom  of,  in  Col- 
iseum, II,  261 
Impalement,  death  by,  II,  61 
Infanticide,  among  Romans,  II,  254 


INDEX 


395 


Inkerman,  story  of  soldier  killed  at 

battle  of,  II,  191 
Innes,  on  the  trials  of  Jesus  before 

the  Sanhedrin,  I,  185;  II,  10 
on  the  cowardice  of  Pilate,  II,  138 
Interpreters,  not  allowed  in  Jewish 

courts,  I,  107 
Imprisonment.     See    Law,   Hebrew 

Criminal,  I,  93 
Ishmael,    Jewish     rabbi,     and     the 

Mishna,  I,  79 
Ismael     ben    Eliza,    Jewish    scribe, 

biographical  note  on,  II,  309 
Ismael     ben     Phabi,    Jewish     high 

priest,     biographical     note    on, 

II,    298 
family  of,  cursed   in  Talmud,  II, 

Isis,  Egyptian  deity,  rites  of,  estab- 
lished  in   Rome,   II,   217 
Roman    temples    of,    a    resort  of 
vice,  II,  269 

Issachar  ben  Keifar  Barchi,  Jewish 
priest,  cursed  in  Talmud,  II,  302 

J 

James,   brother  of  Jesus,   condem- 
nation of,  by  Ananus,  II,  296 
Janus,   Roman   god,  invocations  of, 

II,  207 
Jehovah,  appearances  of,  in  human 

form,  I,  343-349 
Jerome,  St.,  on  the  Jewish  anathema 

against  Christians,  II,  308 
Jesus,  the  Christ 

human  perfection  of,  I,  14;  II,  186 

scourging  of,  I,  56,  57 

breaking  of  legs  of,   by  soldiers, 

1.57 
bloody  sweat  of,  I,  59,  60 
physical  cause  of  death  of,  I,  61, 

62 
watery  issue  of,  I,  60-62 


Jesus,  the  Christ 

devotion  of  women  to,  I,  66 

resurrection  of,  I,  211;  II,  368 

divinity  of,  I,  2ii,  2i2 

celebrates  the  Paschal  feast,  I, 
220-224 

at  Gethsemane,  I,  224-226 

arrest  of,  I,  225 

private  examination  of,  before 
high  priest,  I,  238-247 

charged  with  sedition  and  blas- 
phemy, I,  250 

announces  his  Messiahship  before 
Sanhedrin,  I,  273,  274 

Messianic  prophecies  fulfilled  in 
Him,  I,  323-328,  341,  342 

miracles  of,  I,  350-355 

at  morning  session  of  Sanhedrin, 
I,  356-362 

condemned  to  death  by  Sanhedrin, 

I'  365    . 
His   teachings   treasonable   under 

Roman  law,  II,  72 
before  Pilate,  II,  96  seq. 
charged  with  high  treason  before 

Pilate,  II,  106,  352 
indictment  of,    before   Pilate,   II, 

107-109 
acquitted  by  Pilate,  II,  116 
sent  by  Pilate  to  Herod,  II,   118 
before  Herod,  II,  119  seq. 
mocked,  and  sent  back  to  Pilate 

by  Herod,  II,   127 
second     appearance     of,     before 

Pilate,  II,  129  seq. 
delivered  to  Jews  by  Pilate,  II,  138 
mocked  by  mob,  II,  139 
tributes  of  skeptics  to,  II,  187 
Napoleon's  tribute  to,  II,  189,  190 
charged  by  Jews  with  illegitimacy, 

11.,  356 
crucifixion  of,  II,  365 
See    also  trial  of  Jesus,  Hebrew, 

and  trial  of  Jesus,  Roman 


39^ 


INDEX 


Jesus   ben   Sie,   Jewish  high  priest, 

biographical  note  on,  II,  298 
Jews,  the 

political  state  of,  at  time  of  Jesus, 

II,  11-23 
discussion   of  their   responsibility 
for  Christ's  death,  II,  174-180 
prejudices  against,  II,  180-187 
distinguished,  II,  185,  186 
Joazar,    Jewish    high    priest,    bio- 
graphical note  on,  II,  296 
Jochanan    ben  Zakai,  Jewish  scribe, 

biographical  note  on,  II,  311 
John,  St.,  at  the  sepulcher,  I,  37 

at  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  I,  65 
John,  St.,  Gospel  of,  style  of,  I,  19 
John,    Jewish    priest,    biographical 

note  on,  II,  299 
Jonathan,    son    of    Annas,    Jewish 
high   priest,    biographical   note 
on,  II,  295 
Jonathan  ben  Uziel,  Jewish  scribe, 

biographical  note  on,  II,  306 
John,    son   of  John,    Jewish   elder, 

biographical  note  on,  II,  321 
Joseph  of  Arimathea 

presence   of,    at   trials   of  Christ, 

I,  282-286,  364 
biographical  note  on,  II,  318 
receives  body  of  Jesus  from  Pilate, 

n,  366 

apocryphal  account  of  escape  of, 

from  Jews,  II,  367,  373-376 
Josephus,  Flavius 

on  the  character  of  Pilate,  I,  2i 

on  scourging,  I,  56 

on  the  Pharisees,  I,  87 

on  the  existence  of  the  great  San- 

hedrin    at    time    of   Christ,    I, 

176 
on  the  loss,  by  Jews,  of  power  of 

life  and  death,  II,   19 
on     the     rapacity     of     the    high 

priests,  II,  301 


Jowett,  Benjamin,  upon  the  corrup- 
tion of  Rome,  II,  240 

Judah,  the  Holy,  Jewish  rabbi, 
and  the  composition  of  the 
Mishna,  I,  79,  80 

Judas,  son  of  Hezekiah,  Jewish 
rebel,  put  to  death  by  Herod, 
II,  109 

Judas  Iscariot,  his  betrayal  of  Christ, 

I,  227-235 

Julia,  daughter  of  Augustus,  prof- 
ligacy of,  II,  82 
marriages  of,  II,  83 

Julian,  Roman  emperor,  his  defiance 
of  Mars,  II,  222 

Juno,  Roman  divinity,  sacrifices  to, 

II,  208 

Jupiter,  Roman  deity,  multitudinous 

forms  of,  II,  203 
sacrifices  to,  II,  208 
Justin  Martyr,  reference  of,  to  "Acts 

ofPilate,"II,  331,346,  348 
Juvenal,  Satires  of,  on  Roman  social 

depravity,  II,  240,  244,  248 


K 

Keim,  Theodor 

on  the  existence  of  the  Great  San- 

hedrin    at   the   time   of  Christ, 

I,  178 

on    the    character   of  Christ,    II, 

188,  189 

Knight,  R.  P.,  on  the  symbolism  of 

the  Cross,  II,  65 
Koran,  the,  I,  77 


Lamartine,  Alphonse,  on  the  death 

of  Christ,  II,  3 
Lampon,  Greek  diviner,  exposed  by 

Anaxagoras,  II,  226 


INDEX 


397 


Lardner,  on  the  authenticity  of  the 

"Acts  of  Pilate,"  II,  328  seq. 
Law,  Hebrew  Criminal 

administration  of,  I,  153,  154 

basis  of,  I,  73,  84,  85 

burial   of    bodies  after  execution 

under,  I,  loi,  171 
capital     punishments     under,     I, 

9i-93»  99-101 
circumstantial  evidence  under,  I, 

144 
Cities  of  Refuge  under,  I,  96 
courts  and  judges,  I,  102-126 
execution  under,  I,  170,  171 
false  swearing  under,  I,  93 
flagellation  under,  I,  94 
imprisonment  under,  I,  93 
peculiarities  of,  I,  125,  132,  147, 

167,  168 
slavery  under,  I,  95 
tenderness  of,  for  human  life,  I, 

154,  155.  310 

testimony  under,  I,  144-147 

witnesses  under,  I,  127-144 

written  and  documentary  evidence 
irrelevant,  I,  133,  145 
Laws,  Roman 

lex  Appuleia,  II  69 

Cornelia,  II,  69 

Julia  Majestatis,  II,  69,  80 

Memmia,   II,  46 

Porcia,  II,  54 

Remmia,   II,  49 

Talionis,   II,  53 

Valeria,   II,  l,T,  54 

Varia,  II,  69 
Lazarus,  raising  of,  from  the  dead, 

I,  352 
Lectisternia,  Roman  banquets  to  the 

gods,    slaves    released    at,    II, 

130 
indecencies  of,  II,  218 
Lemann,  extract  from  work  of,  on 

Sanhedrin,  II,  291 


Lepidus,  Marcus,  Roman  patrician, 

magnificence  of,  II,  246 
Livy,  on  scourging,  I,  57 

account   of  Bacchanalian   orgies, 

II,    270-283 
Longinus,  legendary  name  of  soldier 

who  pierced  Christ,  II,  379 
Lucullus,  Roman   patrician,  luxury 

of,  II,  244 
Luke,  St.,  occupation  of,  I,  19 
Luke,  St.,  Gospel  of,  style  of,  I,  ig 
Lupercals,  Roman  priests,  II,  204 
Luxury  of  the  Romans,  II,  244 
Lycurgus,  code  of,  II,  241 

M 

Macarius,    identification    of    "true 

cross"  by,  II,  63 
Macaulay,  Lord,  speech  of,  on  Jew- 
ish disabilities,  II,  184 
Mahomet,  character  of,  I,  14 
Malchus,  ear  of,  cut  off  by   Peter, 

I,  36,  226 
Magath,  Julius,  extract  from  work 

of,  II,  291 
Maimonides,    on     Hebrew    Capital 

Crimes,  I,  91 
on   the  prohibition    of   nocturnal 

trials,  I,  255,  256 
Manlius,  Marcus,  trial  of,  before  the 

Comitia  Centuriata,  II,  40 
Marius,  Caius,  assassin   cowed   by, 

I,  62 
Mark,  St.,  Jesus  arrested  at  home  of, 

I,  220 
Marriage,   among  the  Romans,   II, 

236 
among  the  Greeks,   II,  240-243 
Marcius,  Quintus,   Roman    consul, 

motion  of,  on  the  suppression  of 

the    Bacchanalian     orgies,    II, 

282 
Mars,  Roman  deity,  II,  208 


39^ 


INDEX 


Messiah',  the 

prophecies  regarding,  and  their 
fulfillment  in  Jesus,  I,  322-328 

varying  expectations  of  Jews  re- 
garding, I,  319-322;  II,  no 

conception  of  Pharisees  of,  II,  324 

conception   of  Sadducees   of,    II, 

325 
Matthew,  St.,  occupation  of,  I,  ig 
Matthias,  son  of  Annas,  Jewish  high 
priest,     biographical     note    on, 
II,  296 
Mendelssohn  on  the  Talmud,  I,  75 
Messalina,    Roman    empress,    lewd- 
ness of,  II,  244 
Messalinus,    Cotta,    prosecuted    for 

treason,  II,  70 
Metrodorus    on    the    Greek     gods, 

II,  226 
Mezeray,  de,  on   the   bloody  sweat 

of  Charles  IX,  I,  60 
Minerva,  Roman  deity,  II,  208 
Miracles,  probability  of,   I,  40-51 
Spinoza  on,  I,  40-43 
Renan  on,  I,  44 
of  Christ,  I,  351-354 
Mishna,  the 

E.  Deutsch  on,  I,  80 

subdivisions  of,  I,  80 

relation  of  Talmud  to,  I,  83 

traditional  view  of,  I,  84 

on   capital    and    pecuniary   cases, 

I,  155,  156.     See  also  Gemara 
and  Talmud 

Mommsen,  Theodor,  on   the  juris- 
diction    of    native     courts     of 
Roman  subject  peoples,  II,  15 
on    Roman  marital   looseness,  II, 

243 
on  Roman  extravagance,  II,  247 
Montefiore,  Sir  Moses,  anecdote  of, 

II,  180 

Mosaic  Code,  the,  a  basis  of  Hebrew 
Criminal  Law,  I,  73,  84,  85 


Miiller,   Johannes,   explodes  legend 
of   Pilate    and    Lake    Lucerne, 

n,95 

N 

Nachum    Halbalar,    Jewish    scribe, 

biographical  note  on,  II,  314 
Naevius,  Marcus,  accusation  of  Scipio 

Africanus  by,  II,  41 
Napoleon  I,  fickleness  of  populace 
toward,  I,  63,  64 
tribute  of,  to  Jesus,  II,  189 
religious  faith  of,  II,  190,  191 
Nasi,  prince  of  the  Sanhedrin,  I,  112 
Nathan,  Jewish  rabbi,  note  on,  II, 

315,  note 
Neptune,  Roman  deity,  II,  208 
Nero,    Roman    emperor,  deification 
of,  II,  234 
Golden  House  of,   II,  246 
Ney,  Michel,  French  marshal,  com- 
pared with  St.  Peter,  I,  64 
Nicodemus,  Jewish  elder 

presence  of,  at  trial  of  Christ,  I, 

282-286 
defense  of    Christ  before  Sanhe- 
drin, I,  305 
presence  and  conduct  of,  at  second 
trial  of  Jesus    by  Sanhedrin,  I, 

364 
biographical  note  on,  II,  319 
apocryphal    account    of   pleading 

of,  for  Jesus  before  Pilate,  II, 

360 
Gospel  of.     See  "Acts  of  Pilate" 
Nordau,   Max,  on   Jewish   pride  in 

Jesus,  II,  188 

o 

Oaths,  not  administered  to  witnesses, 

under  Jewish  law,  I,  134 
Octavian.     See  Augustus 


INDEX 


399 


Omens,  belief  of  Romans  in,  II,  215 

Onkelos,  Jewish  scribe,  biographical 
note  on,  II,  305 

Oracle,  Delphic,  consulted  by  Ro- 
mans, II,  210 

Osiris,  Egyptian  deity,  the  cross  a 
symbol  of,  II,  66 

Ovid,  Roman  poet,  on  unnatural 
practices  in  temples,  II,  269 


Paganism,    Graeco-Roman 

conflict  of,  with  Christianity,  I,  16; 
II,  76-79 

Hellenization  of  Roman  religion, 
II,  199 

importation   of  foreign  gods,  II, 
200 

origin  and  multiplicity  of  Roman 
gods,  II,  198-204 

Roman  priesthood,  II,  204,  205 

Roman  forms  of  worship,  II,  205- 
209 

perplexity  of  worshipers  regarding 
deities,  II,  207 

prayer,  II,  207,  208-210 

augury  and  divination,  II,  210-215 

omens,  II,  215,  216 

decay  of  Roman  faith,  II,  217-220 

Roman  skepticism,  II,  220-229 

sacrilege  among  Romans,  II,  221 

disbelief  of  Romans  in  immortal- 
ity, II,  228,  229 

Epicureanism  among  the  Romans, 
II,  229-231 

stoicism,  II,  231-233 

deification    of  Roman    emperors, 
11,  233-235 

base  deities  of  Romans,  II,  265 

eflPect  of  religion  in  Greek  and  Ro- 
man social  corruption,  II,  269 
Palace  of  Herod,  description  of,  II, 
96,  97 


Paley,  William,  on  the  discrepancies 

of  the  Gospels,  I,  32,  ^^ 
Pan,  Graeco-Roman  divinity,  feasts 

of,  II,  265 
Paul,  St.,  on  the  depravity  of  Rome, 
II,  284 
delivery  of,  to  Felix,  II,  299 
Pericles,  Greek  tyrant,  and  the  divi- 
nation of  Lampon,  II,  226 
Pentateuch,  the,  a  basis  of  Hebrew 

jurisprudence,  I,  y^ 
Permanent    Tribunals     (quststiones 
perpetuas),  mode  of  trials  before, 
at  Rome,  II,  43-52 
Peter,  St. 

at  the  sepulcher,  I,  37 
compared  with  Marshal  Ney,  I,  64 
and  Malchus,  I,  36,  226 
Pharisees 
and  the  Talmud,  I,  87 
attitude  of,  toward  the  law,  I,  338 
dominant  in  priestly  order,  II,  302 
their  conception  of  the  Messiah, 

II,  324 
characteristics  of,  II,  324 
Philip,  St.,  and  the  feeding  of  the 

five  thousand,  I,  35 
Phillips,  Wendell,  on  Hindu  swords- 
manship, I,  48 
Philo,    Jewish    philosopher,   on    the 
character  of  Pilate,   I,   21;   II, 
89-91 
Phryne,  mistress  of  Praxiteles 

anecdote  of,  II,  242 
Pilate,  Pontius 

powers  of,  as  procurator  of  Judea, 

II,  V-3^ 
name  and  origin  of,  II,  81,  82 

marriage  of,  II,  82 

becomes  procurator  of  Judea,  II, 

84 
provokes  the  Jews,  II,  85 
appropriates  funds  from  Corban, 

II,  86 


400 


INDEX 


Pilate,  Pontius 

hangs  shields  in   Herod's  palace, 

II,  88 
slays  Galileans,  II,  88 
character  of,  I,  21;  II,  88 
canonization  of,  II,  89 
ordered  to  Rome  by  Vitellius,  II,g2 
legends    regarding    death    of,    II, 

92-94 
interrogation  of  Jesus,  II,  112-I15 
talents  of,  II,  115 
his  opinion  of  Jesus,  II,  115 
acquits  Jesus,  II,  116 
sends  Jesus  to  Herod,  II,  117 
reconciled  with  Herod,  II,  128 
offers  to  release  Barabbas,  II,  130 
warned  by  wife's  dream  of  Jesus, 

II,  133,  355 
washes  his  hands  of  Christ's  death, 

II,  U7,  364 
releases  Barabbas,  II,  138, 363 
summary  of  his  conduct  of  Christ's 

trial,  II,  168 
conduct  of,  compared  with  Caesar, 
II,  169;  with  Sir  Edward  Coke, 
II,   170-172 
Pindar,  Greek  poet,  denunciation  of, 
of  vulgar  superstitions,  II,  224 
Plato,  Greek  philosopher,  unnatural 
love  of,  II,  263 
reprobation    of    Homeric    myths, 
11,264 
Pliny,  the  Younger,  correspondence 
of,  with  Trajan,  II,  78 
disbelief  of,  in  immortality,  II,  229 
on  slavery,  II,  203 
Plutarch,  on  crucifixion,  I,  56 

anecdotes  of  Lucullus,  II,  244-246 
PolybiuSjOn  Roman  pederasty,  11,263 
Pompeia  divorced  by  Csesar,  II,  238 
Pompey,  Cneius,  the  Great 
conquest  of  Palestine  by,  II,  11 
defeated  at  Pharsalia,  II,  25 
divorce  of  his  wife  Mucia,  II,  238 


Pontiffs,  Roman,  II,  204 

Poppaea,  wife  of  Nero,  deification  of, 

11,77 
Postumius,  Spurius,  Roman  consul, 

suppression    of    Bacchanalians 

by,  II,  270-283 
Praetor,  Roman,  judicial  powers  of, 

.    II,  36 
Priesthood,     Roman.     See    Roman 

religion 
Priests,    Jewish    Chamber   of.     See 

Sanhedrin 
Procurator,  Roman,  jurisdiction  of, 

II,  27,  28 
Provinces,  Roman,  classification  of, 

by  Augustus,  II,  27 

Q 

Quetzalcoatle,  crucified  Savior,  wor- 
shiped by  Mexicans,  II,  66 

R 

Rabbi,  origin  of  Jewish  title  of,  II, 

3J5 
Rabbis,  Jewish,  arrogance  of,  II,  316 
Raphall,  Morris,  on  the  origin  of  the 

Sanhedrin,  I,  104 
Rawlinson,  George,  on  the  political 
state  of    Judea  at  the  time  of 
Christ,  II,  II 
Religions,  policy  of  Romans  toward 
foreign,  and  of  conquered  peo- 
ples, II,  72-74 
Renan,  Ernest 

on  miracles,  I,  44-47 

on    the    "judicial    ambush"    of 

blasphemers,  I,  235 
on  the  character  of  Pilate,  II,  90 
on   the   character   of  Christ,    II, 
187,  188 
Richard  III,  King  of  England,  con- 
test of,  with  Saladin,  I,  48 


INDEX 


401 


Richter  on  the  pathology  of  cruci- 
fixion,  II,  58,  59 

Rosadi,  on  the  confession  of  the 
accused      under    Hebrew    law, 

I,  143 

on   the   hatred    of  Pilate   toward 
the  Jews,  II,  98 

on  the  order  of  criminal  trials  in 
Roman  provinces,  II,  32 
Rousseau,    Jean    Jacques,    on    the 

death  of  Christ,  II,  187 
Romans 

laws  of,  the  basis  of  modern  juris- 
prudence, II,  5 

policy  of,  toward  subject  peoples, 

responsibility  of,  for  Christ's  death, 

II,  174-176 

religion  of.     See  Paganism 
Ruga,  Carvilius,  first  Roman  to  pro- 
cure a  divorce,  II,  236 


Sacrifice,    human,    among    the   Ro- 
mans, II,  209 
Sadducees 

attitude  of,  toward  the  law,  I,  338 
attitude  of,  toward   anthropomor- 
phism of  Pentateuch,  I,  338 
dominant  in  the  Sanhedrin,  I,  339 
disbelief   of,   in    immortality,   II, 

322 
wealth  and  rank  of,  II,  322 
Saladin,  Saracen   Sultan,  contest  of, 

with  Richard  III,  I,  48 
Salians,  Roman  priests,  II,  204 
Sallust,    Roman    historian,    on    the 
conspiracy  of  Cataline,  II,  229 
Salvador,  Joseph,  on  the  existence  of 
the  Great  Sanhedrin  at  the  time 
of  Christ,  I,  177 
Samuel,    Hakaton,    Jewish    scribe, 
biographical  note  on,  II,  307 


Sanctuary,  right  of,  among  ancient 

peoples,  1,  96 
Sanhedrin,  the  Great 
origin  of,  I,  103 
history  of,  I,  104 
organization  of,  I,  105 
chamber  of  scribes,  I,  105;  II,  303 
chamber  of  elders,  I,  105;  II,  318 
chamber  of  priests,  I,  105;  II,  292 
qualifications  of    members  of,   I, 

106 
disqualifications  of   judges  of,   I, 

109 
officers  of,  I,  112 
compensation  of  officers  of,  I,  115 
sessions  of,  I,  116 
recruitment  of  personnel  of,  I,  117 
quorum  of,  I,  119 
jurisdiction  of,  I,  119 
appeals  to,  from  minor  Sanhedrins, 

I,  120 
morning  sacrifice  of,  I,  157 
assembling  of  judges  of,  I,  158 
scribes  of,  I,  1 58,  159 
examination    of  witnesses    by,    I, 

159-162 
debates  and  balloting  of  judges  of, 

I,  162 
procedure  of,  in  cases  of  condem- 
nation of  accused,  I,  165-167 
method  of  counting  votes,  I,  167, 

168 
death  march  of,  I,  169,  170 
question  of  existence  of,  at    time 

of  Christ,  I,  1 75-1 8 1 
jurisdiction    of,    in    capital     cases 

at  time  of  Christ,  I,  181-183 
discussion  of  trial  of  Christ  before, 

I,  183-186 
procedure   of,    in    trial    of  Christ 

before,  I,  186 
illegality  of  proceedings  of,  against 

Christ,    I,    255-259,    260-262, 

263-266,  267-270,  287-294 


402 


INDEX 


Sanhedrin,  the  Great 

illegality  of  sentence  of,   against 

Christ,  I,  271-278,  279-286 
disqualifications   of  members    of, 

who  condemned  Christ,  I,  296- 

308 
morning    session    of,    at    trial  of 

Christ,  I,  356-364 
three  sessions  of,  to  discuss  Christ, 

I,  305.  306 
authority   of,    after    Roman    con- 
quest, II,  12,  16,  21 
deprived  by  Romans  of  power  of 
capital  punishment,  II,   19,  20 
biographical  sketches  of  members 
of,  who  tried  Jesus,  II,  291-326 
Sanhedrins,  minor 

appeals  from,  to  Great  Sanhedrin, 

I,  120 
establishment  of,  I,  121 
jurisdiction  of,  I,  12I 
superior   rank  of  those  of  Jeru- 
salem, I,  123,  124 
Saul,     Abba,     Jewish     scribe,     bio- 
graphical note  on,  II,  313 
Savonarola,     Girolamo,     Florentine 

reformer,  burning  of,  I,  63 
Scaurus,   Manercus,  prosecuted   for 

treason,  II,  70 
Sceva,   Jewish    priest,    biographical 

note  on,  II,  300 
Schenck,  account  of,  of  the  bloody 

sweat  of  a  nun,  I,  59 
Schiirer,  on  the  existence  of  the  San- 
hedrin at  the  time  of  Christ,  I,  176 
on  the  jurisdiction   of  the  Sanhe- 
drin, II,  18 
on  the  administration  of  civil   law 
by  Sanhedrin,  II,  30 
Scipio     Africanus,    trial    of,    before 

Comitia  Centuriata 
Scott,  Sir  Walter,  on  the  contest  be- 
tween Richard  III  and  Saladin, 
I,  47,  48 


Scourging,  of  Jesus,  I,  56 

mode  of,  among  Romans,  II,  55 
Scribes,  Jewish,  Edersheim  on,  I,  302 
Scribes,    Jewish    Chamber   of.     See 

Sanhedrin 
Segnensis,    Henricus,    anecdote    of, 
illustrative   of   mediaeval    igno- 
rance regarding  Talmud,  II,  74 
Semiramis,  Assyrian  queen,  origin  of 

crucifixion  imputed  to,  II,  54 
Seneca 

anecdote  from,  regarding  political 

informers,  II,  71 
on  the  patriotic  observance  of  the 

national  religion,  II,  226 
on  suicide,  II,  232 
on  slavery,  II,  252 
on  Roman  myths,  II,  265 
Septuagint,    version    of   the    Bible, 
paraphrasing   of  anthropomor- 
phic passages  in,  I,  237 
Sepulture,     of    crucified     criminals 

forbidden,  II,  58 
Serapis,   Egyptian   deity,  images  of 
thrown  down,  II,  73 
Marcus  Aurelius  an  adorer  of,  II, 
217 
Servilia,   mistress   of  Julius   Caesar, 

II,  239 
Shammai,  School  of,  and  the  Mishna, 

.  ^'  79 
dissensions    of,    with     School     of 

Hillel,  II,  309 
Shevuah    ben    Kalba,  Jewish  elder, 

biographical  note  on,  II,  319 
Shoterim  of  the  Sanhedrin,  I,  113 
Sibylline  Books,  II,  199,  204 
Sibyl,  Erythraean,  Virgil  inspired  by, 

11,287 
Simon,  Jewish  rebel,  revolt  of,  II,  no 
Simon,    Jewish    elder,    biographical 

note  on,  II,  320 
Simon    Boethus,  made    high  priest 

by  Herod  I,  II,  296 


INDEX 


403 


Simon  ben  Camithus,  Jewish    high 
priest,  biographical  note  on,  II, 
298 
Simon     Cantharus,     Jewish      high 
priest,  biographical  note  on,  II, 
.297 
Simon,  son  of  Gamaliel,  Jewish  eld- 
er, biographical  note  on,  II,  305 
Simon     Hamizpah,    Jewish    scribe, 

biographical  note  on,  II,  314 
Sinaitic  MS.  of  the  Bible,  I,  67 
Slavery 

under  Hebrew  law,  I,  95 
account  of,   among   Romans,    II, 
250,  251 
Social  life,  Grceco-Roman 

marriage  and  divorce,  II,  236-240 

prostitution,  II,  242-244 

luxury  and  extravagance,  II,  244- 

249 
poverty  of  Roman  masses,  II,  249 
slavery,  II,  249-253 
infanticide,  II,  254 
gladiatorial  games,  II,  255-262 
depravity  of,  traceable  to  corrupt 

myths,  II,  262-270 
practice  of  Bacchanalian  rites,  II, 

270-283 
hopeless  state  of,  at  time  of  Christ, 
II,  284-287 
Socrates,  Greek  philosopher,  resem- 
blance   of  charges    against,    to 
those  against  Jesus,  II,  181 
counsel  of,  to  Hetairai,  II,  243 
Sodomy,      prevalence     of,      among 
Greeks   and    Romans,  II,  262- 
264 
practiced  in   Roman  temples,  II, 
269 
Solomon  ben  Joseph,  Jewish  rabbi, 

on  the  Talmud,  I,  90 
Sonnenthal,  Adolf  von,  Jewish  actor, 
refused  freedom  of  Vienna,  II, 
182 


Sparta,  licentiousness  of,  II,  241 
Spartacus,  Roman  gladiator,  revolt 

of,  II,  259,  260 
Spartans,   marital    looseness  of,    II, 

241 
Spinoza,     Jewish     philosopher,     on 

miracles,  I,  40-44 
Standards,    apocryphal    miracle    of, 

at  trial  of  Christ,  II,  354  seq. 
Starkie    on    the    credibility   of  tes- 
timony, I,  12 
Stephen,  St.,  stoning  of,  I,  365 
Stephen,   Sir   James    F.   J.,   on   the 

Roman    treatment    of    Christi- 
anity, II,  76 
on    Pilate's    trial    of    Jesus,     II, 

159-164 
Stoicism,    among    the    Romans,   II, 

231 
resemblance  of,  to  Christian  pre- 
cepts, II,  331 
Stoning  of  criminals  under  Hebrew 

law,  I,  92,  99 
Strangling,  of  criminals  under  He- 

brevv'  law,  I,  91,  99 
Strauss,  David,  on  the  behavior  of 

Jesus  before  Herod,  II,  126 
on    the   character   of  Christ,   II, 

187 
Stroud    on    the    physical     cause    of 

death  of  Christ,  I,  61,  62 
Suetonius,  Roman  historian 

on  the  labeling  of  criminals  before 

execution,  I,  57 
on  divination,  II,  213 
narrative  of,  of  dreams  presaging 

reign  of  Augustus,  II,  214 
account  of,  of  belief  of  Augustus 

in  omens,  II,  215 
Suicide,    attitude   of  Stoics  toward, 

II,  232 
Suspension,  death  by,  II,  61,  62 
Sweat,    bloody,   historical   instances 

of,  I,  59,  60 


404 


INDEX 


Tacitus,  Roman  historian,  on  slavery, 

II,  253 
Talmud,  the 

definition  of,  I,  74 

recensions  of,  I,  81 

contents  of,  I,  82 

relation  of  Mishna  to,  I,  83,  to 
Gemara,  I,  83;  to  Pentateuch, 
I,  83;  to  Mosaic  Code,  I,  84,  85 

efforts  of  Christians  to  extirpate, 

I,  87,  88 

message  and  mission  of,  I,  8g 
See  also  Gemara  and  Mishna 
Telemachus,  St.,  death  of,  in  arena, 

II,  261 

Temples,  a  resort  of  immorality  in 

Rome,  II,  269 
Tertullian,    Latin     father,    on    the 
character  of  Pilate,  II,  89 
on   the   resort   of  vice  to  temple 

precincts,  II,  269 
reference    of,    to    the    "Acts    of 
Pilate,"  II,  329, 333  J^^.,  347, 34^ 
Tertullus,  his  prosecution  of  Paul, 

II,  299 
Testimony,  under  Hebrew  Criminal 
Law 
of  each  witness  required  to  cover 

entire  case,  I,  132 
vain,  I,  145 
standing,  I,  146 
adequate,  I,  147 

of  accomplices,  1, 228-230, 235, 236 
Theodota,  the  courtesan,  counseled 

by  Socrates,  II,  243 
Theophilus,   son   of  Annas,   Jewish 
high    priest,   biographical    note 
on,  II,  296 
Theresa,  Maria,  Austrian  empress, 

codex  of,  II,  54 
Three,  Jewish  Courts  of,  jurisdic- 
tion of,  I,  124 


Tiberius  Caesar,  Roman  emperor 
sway  of,  II,  27 
character  of,  II,  70 
prosecutions   of,   for  treason,   II, 

70,  71 
marriage  of,  to  Julia,  II,  83 
legendary     desire     of,     to     deify 
Christ,  II,  329,  33«  seq. 
Tischendorf,    Constantine,    on    the 
authenticity    of   the    "Acts    of 
Pilate,"  II,  345  seq. 
Tissot,    account   of,    of  the    bloody 

sweat  of  a  sailor,  I,  59 
Trajan,  Roman  emperor,  correspon- 
dence of,  with  Pliny,  II,  78 
Trials,  Roman  criminal 
right  of  appeal,  II,  28 
during     the     regal     period,     II, 

35 

Roman,  mode  of,  in  the  Comitia 
Centuriata,  II,  37-43 

mode  of,  in  the  Permanent  Tri- 
bunals, II,  43-52 

prosecutor,  role  and  selection  of, 

II,  43.  44,  49 
Trial   of  Jesus,   Hebrew 

nature    of   charge    against    Jesus 

before  Sanhedrin,  I,  187 
procedure  of,  before  Sanhedrin,  I, 

188 
discussion  of  charge  of  blasphemy 

against  Jesus,  I,  193-209 
illegality  of  arrest  of  Jesus,  I,  219- 

237 
illegality   of  private    examination 

of  Jesus  before  high   priest,  I, 

238-247 
illegality  of  indictment  of  Jesus, 

I,  248-254 
illegality  of  nocturnal  proceedings 

against  Jesus,  I,  255-259 
illegality   of  the    meeting   of  the 

Sanhedrin  before  morning  sac- 
rifice, I,  260-262 


INDEX 


405 


Trial  of  Jesus,  Hebrew 

illegality  of  proceedings  against 
Christ,  because  held  on  the  eve 
of  the  Sabbath,  and  of  a  feast, 
I,  263-266 

illegahty  of  trial,  because  con- 
cluded in  one  day,  I,  267-270 

condemnation  of  Jesus  founded 
on  uncorroborated  evidence,  I, 
271-278 

Jesus  illegally  condemned  by 
unanimous  verdict,  I,  279-286 

condemnation  of  Jesus  pro- 
nounced in  place  forbidden  by 
law,  I,  288-292 

irregular  balloting  of  judges  of 
Jesus,  I,  292-294 

condemnation  of  Jesus  illegal, 
because  of  unlawful  conduct  of 
high  priest,    I,   290,   291 

disqualifications  of  judges  of  Jesus, 
I,  296-308 

Jesus  condemned  without  defense, 

I,  309  . 
second  trial  of  Jesus  by  Sanhedrin, 

I,  356-366 

Trial  of  Jesus,  Roman 

discussion  of  Roman  and  Hebrew 

jurisdiction,  H,  3-23 
Roman  law  applicable  to,  H,  68-80 
as  conducted  by  Pilate,  H,  96-118, 

129-139 
legal  analysis  of,  H,  141-168 
Tribune,  Roman,  judicial  powers  of, 

II.  36 

Tryphon,  son  of  Theudion,  Jewish 
elder,  biographical  note  on, 
H,  321 

Twelve  Tables,  laws  of  the,  H,  53, 208 


U 


Ulpian,  Roman  jurist,  his  definition 
of  treason,  H,  69 


V 

Vatican,  MS.  of  the  Bible,  I,  67 
Venus,   Roman   deity,  sacrifices  to, 

n,2o8 
impersonated  by  Phryne,  H,  243 
worshiped  by  harlots,  H,  266 
Veronica,  St.,  legend  of,  H,  93 
Vestals,    Roman    priestesses,    guar- 
dians of  sacred  fire,  H,  204 
spectators    at    licentious    dramas, 

11,267 
Vinicius,  Lucius,  Roman  patrician, 

letter  of  Augustus  to,  H,  83 
Virgil,     poem     of,     on     advent     of 

heaven-born   child,   I,  321;   H, 

287 
Virginia,  legend  of,  H,  236 
Vitellius,     legate     of    Syria,   spares 

Jewish  prejudices,  H,  85 
orders  Pilate  to  Rome,  H,  92 
Vitia,  Roman  matron,  executed  for 

treason,  H,  71 
Voltaire,  Francois  de,  account  of,  of 

the  bloody  sweat  of  Charles  IX, 

1.59 
on  character  of  Christ,  H,  187 
Vulgate,    version    of   the    Bible,    I, 
68 


W 

Witnesses,   under   Hebrew  Criminal 

Law 
competency  and  incompetency  of, 

I,  127-129 
number   of,    required   to   convict, 

I,  129 
agreement  of,  I,  131 
adjuration  to,  I,  134 
examination  of,  I,  136,  138 
false,  I,  140 
the  accused  as,  I,  141 
separation  of,  I,  137 


4o6  INDEX 

Wise,  Rabbi,  on  the  non-existence  of  y 

the  Great  Sanhedrin  at  time  of 

Christ,  I,  176,  179  Zadok,  Jewish  scribe,   biographical 

on  the  "martyrdom  of  Jesus,"  1,  note  on,  II,  310 

330  Zeno,  Greek  philosopher,  originator 

of  Stoicism,  II,  229 
Y  Zeus,  Greek  divinity,  character  of, 

I,   14 
Xenophanes,   ridicule  of,  of  Greek  myth  of  rape    of  Ganymede   by, 

religion,  II,  224  II,  262 


DATE  DUE 

n^:,.''^^' 

'SS 

1 

n£jijnaiirt:xiii|ji 

W 

"^^*^ 

-— **^ 

GAYUORD 

PRINTED  IN  US    A. 

-s^ 


.<t— ' 


BS2425.6.C45V.2 

The  trial  of  Jesus  from  a  lawyer's 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00029  6394 


•sr 


^VT 


^K-:^' 


r~',v\/f- 


w  >i  ■■■■ 


